Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	jurisdiction_n	5,357	5	9.3309	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09102	The iudgment of a Catholicke English-man, living in banishment for his religion VVritten to his priuate friend in England. Concerninge a late booke set forth, and entituled; Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus, or, An apologie for the oath of allegiance. Against two breves of Pope Paulus V. to the Catholickes of England; & a letter of Cardinall Bellarmine to M. George Blackwell, Arch-priest. VVherein, the said oath is shewed to be vnlawfull vnto a Catholicke conscience; for so much, as it conteyneth sundry clauses repugnant to his religion.; Judgment of a Catholicke English-man, living in banishment for his religion	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1608 (1608)	STC 19408; ESTC S104538	91,131	136

no doubt were great if it were true in such a man as Cardinall Bellarmine is that he hath mistaken the whole State of the Questiō in his writing to M. Blackwell going about to impugne only the old Oath of Supremacy in steed of this new Oath entituled Of Allegiance but this is most cleerly refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it self For that telling M. Blackwell how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlafull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therfore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offered somwhat tempered modifyed c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath byn shewed but interlaced also with other members that reach to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacie hath no such mixture but is playnly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall and for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25 yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt V. Only I do heere note by the way that the Apologer in setting downe the forme of the Oath of Supremacie saith I A. B. do vtterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings Highnes is the only Supreme Gouernour as well in all causes spirituall as temporall wheras in the Statute of 26. of K. Henry the 8. where the tytle of Supremacy is enacted the wordes are these Be it enacted by this present Parlament that the King our Soueraigne his heirs and successors shal be taken accepted and reputed the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England called Ecclesia Anglicana and shall haue inioy annexed and vnited to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as well the tytle and style therof as all honours digni●yes authorityes annuityes profitis and commodityes to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the said Church belonging c. VI. And further wheras two yeares after an Oath was deuised for confirmation heerof in Parlament the wordes of the Oath are sett downe That he shall sweare to renounce vtterly and relinquish the Bishop of Rome and his Authority power and iurisdiction c. And that from hence forth he shall accept repute and take the Kings M. tie to be the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath shall be reputed traytors and suffer the paynes of death c. And in other Statutes it is decreed that it shall be treason to deny this title of headship to the King And by like Decree of Parlament it is declared vnder King Edward what this Authority of headshipp is when they say For so much as all Authority of Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is deryued deduced from the Kings M. tie as Supreme Head of these Churches Realmes of England and Ireland c. VII This was wont to be the doctryne of Supremacy in the tymes of King Henry and King Edward and it was death to deny this tytle or not to sweare the same now our Apologer thinketh it not good to giue it any longer to his Ma. tie that now is but calleth him only Supreme Gouernour which is a new deuise taken from Iohn Reynolds other his fellowes who aboue twenty yeares gone being pressed by his Aduersary M. Hart about calling Q. Elizabeth Head of the Church he denyeth flatly that they called her so but only Supreme Gouernesse which I had thought they had done in regard of her sex that is not permitted to speake in the Church But now I perceaue they haue passed the same also ouer to his M. tie not permitting him to inherite the tytles eyther of King Edward or King Henry which misliketh not vs at all for that so farre they may passe heerin as we may come to agree For if they will vnderstand by supreme Gouernour the temporall Princes Supreme Authority ouer all persons of his dominions both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall in temporall matters excepting only Spirituall wherin as yow haue heard a litle before S. Ambrose told the Christian Emperours of his tyme that being Lay-men they could not rightly meddle I see no great difficulty which in this affayre would remayne betweene vs. VIII To returne then to the Charge of ouersight and grosse mistaking to vse the Apologers words layd by him to Cardinal Bellarmine for impugning the ancienter Oath of Supremacy insteed of this later called Of Allegiance Of giuing the child a wrong name as he saith I see not by what least colour or shew of reason it may stād against him For besydes that which we haue said before of the tēperament modification mentioned by him to be craftily couched in this later Oath which by his letter he refuteth I meane of lawfull and vnlawfull clauses which must needes be vnderstood of the second Oath he adioyneth presently the cōfutation of those modifications saying For yow know that those kind of modifications are nothing els but sleightes subtilityes of Sathā that the Catholicke faith touching the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke might eyther secretly or openly be shott at Lo heere he mentioneth both the Oathes the one which shooteth secretly at the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke which is the later Of Allegiance the other that impugneth it openly which is the first of the Supremacy And as he nameth the secōd in the first place so doth he principally prosecute the same proueth the vnlawfulnes therof mentioning the other but only as by the way for that it is as Totū ad Partē to the former as a man can hardly speake of particuler mēbers of a body without naming also the said body as whē S. Iames inuegheth against the tōgue he saith That it inflameth the whole body so Card. all Bellarmine could hardly reproue the particuler branches of the Oath of Allegiance tending against sundry parts of the Popes Primacie without mentioning the generall Oath of Supremacy though it were not his purpose chiefly to impugne that but the other Which later Oath albeit the Apologer sticketh not to say that it toucheth not any part of the Popes Spirituall Supremacy yet in the very next period he contradicteth ouerthroweth himselfe therin For so much as deuiding the said Oath of Allegiance into 14. seuerall partes or parcels twelue of them at least do touch the said Supremacy one way or other as by examination yow will fynd and we shall haue occasion after to declare more at large IX As for example he writeth thus And that the Iniustice saith he as well as the error of Bellarmine his grosse mistaking in this poynt may yet be more cleerly discouered I haue

vnto them Wee see no Oath offered nor mentioned and so nothing heere to our purpose Wherin then or why are they said to haue submitted themselues For that perhaps it is said in the Preface of the Councell that they were gathered togeather by order and commandement of the said Emperour Surely it was hard that so many Bishops Archbishops should be assembled togeather without his liking and Order But that the consent direction and chiefe Commission for the same came from the Bishop of Rome may easily be gathered for that in the first Councell that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions which was that of VVormes in the yeare of Christ 770. it was left registred in these wordes Auctoritas Ecclesiastica atque Canonica docet non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall Authority teacheth that Councels may not be held without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome LIII And wherin thē Or why is this submission made For approbation of matters cōcerning faith No for that yow haue heard before out of S. Ambrose that therin Emperours are not iudges of Bishops but Bishops of Emperours Wherin then or why is this submission or rather remission to the Emperour and his iudgmēt It was for that this Councell was made onely for reformation of manners and matters at the religious instāce of the good Emperour the effectuating wherof did depend principally of his good will and assistance and so after the first Canon where briefly is set downe the Confession of the Christian faith all the other 25. Canons for there are only 26. in all are about reformation of matters amisse as for more diligence in daylie prayer for the Emperours person and his children to wit that Masses and Litanies be said daylie for them by all Bishops Abbots Monks and Priests That Bishops and Priests study more diligently and teach the people both by lessons and preachings That lay men may not put out Priests of their benefices without the sentence of the Bishop nor that they take money of them for collation of the said benefices That none be admitted to enter into the Monasteryes of Virgins eyther to say Mass● or otherwise but such as be o● approued vertue How peace is to be held betweene Bishops Earles and other Great men especially in execution of Iustice That weightes and measures be iust and equall and that none worke vpon holy dayes That all Tythes be payd all ancient possessions mantayned to the Churches That no secular courtes be held in Churches or Church porches That no Earles or other Great men do ●raudulently buy poore mens goodes c. LIV. These then were the pointes of Reformation decreed in that Councell of Arles at the instance of Charles the Great who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfe as he caused fiue seuerall Councells to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare to wit this of Arles an other at Towers a third at Chalons a fourth at Mentz the fifth at Rhemes and another the yeare before which was the fixt Ad Theodonis Villam which is a towne in Luxemburge All which Prouinciall Synodes are extant in the third Tome of Coūcells togeather with the Canons and Decrees which are such as could not be put in execution but by the temporall fauour authoritie and approbation of the Emperour in such matters as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction Wherfore if for these respects the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be cōsidered of by his wisedome whether any thing were to be added altered or taken away for the publicke good of the Common Wealth no Controuersy of faith being treated therin what is this to proue eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops or that if he had proposed vnto them any such Oath as this is wherin by professing their temporall Allegiance they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith that they would haue obeyed him And so much of this Councell LV. And for that all the other Authorityes of other Councels heere cyted do tend only to this end of prouing Temporall Obedience which we deny not but do offer the same most willingly we shall not stand to answere or examine any more of them but shall ●nd this Paragraph with laying downe the insultation of this Apologer against the Pope vpō his owne voluntary mistaking the Question I read sayth he in the Scriptures that Christ said His Kingdome was not of this world bidding vs to giue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which was Gods and I euer held it for an infallible Maxime in Deuinity That temporall Obedience to a temporall Magistrate did nothing repugne to matters o● faith o● saluation of soules But that euer Temporall Obedience was against faith and saluation of sou●es as in this Breue is alledged was neuer before heard or read of in the Christian Church and therfore I would haue wished the Pope be●ore he had set downe this Commandement to all Papists heere That since in him is the Power by the infallibility of his spirit to make new Articles of faith when euer it shall please him That he had first set it downe for an Article of faith before he had commanded all Catholicks to belieue and obey it So he LVI And I maruaile that a man professing learning would euer so tryfle or rather wrangle and wrongfully charge his Aduersary for that I fynde no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith and saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholicke affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholicke Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any one new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what points are to be held for matters of faith what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising Which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the self same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true mother thereby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the mother but only the declaration Wherefore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of faith is a meere calumniation amongst the rest LVII There followeth his conclusion I will then conclude saith he my answere to this point in a Dilemma Eyther it is lawfull to obey the Soueraigne in temporall

he would not that he should put him to banishment Now when the Emperours Deputy came to Caesarea he sent for Basil intreated him honorably spake pleasingly vnto him desired he would giue way to the tyme neyther that he would hazard the good of so many Churches tenui exquisitione dogmatis promised him the Emperours fauour and himselfe to be Mediatour for his good But S. Basil answered These intising speaches were fit to be vsed to children that vse to gape after such things But for them that were throughly instructed in Gods word they could neuer suffer any syllable therof to be corrupted Nay if need required they would for the maintenance therof refuse no kind of death In deed the loue of the Emperour ought to be greatly esteemed with Piety but Piety taken away it was pernicious LXVI This is the truth of the storie saith he I haue layd downe at length his declaration to the end that his sleightes may the better appeare in eluding the force of this Answere of S. Basil as though he had said only that no syllable of Gods word was to be suffered to be corrupted wheras his meaning was not only of Gods word or of Scriptures alone but Ne vnam quidem syllabam diuinorum dogmatum not any one syllable of dyuine doctrine taught by the Catholicke Church and so much import his wordes in greeke which are guylfully heere translated for that insteed of the forealleadged sentence wherein consisteth the substance of the said answere to witt That for them that are throughly instructed in Gods word they can neuer suffer any syllable thereof to be corrupted he should haue said That they that haue beene brought vp nourished in sacred learning cannot suffer any one syllable of dyuine doctrynes of the Church to be violated which is cōforme also to S. Basils purpose in hand For that the controuersy which he and other Catholicke Bishops had with the Arrian Doctors in those dayes was not only nor immediatly about the Scriptures out of which the Arrians alleadged more aboundantly then their aduersaries but about certayne doctrynes determined by the Church especially by the Councell of Nice as namely about the vse of the wordes and doctrines of hom●sion or consubstantiality hypostasis substance person trinitie and other the like and whether they should say Gloria Patriet Filio or Gloria Patri cum Filio or in Filio such other differences which vnto the Deputy Modestus seemed but small matters and subtilityes of doctrine but to S. Basil matters of great moment for so much as they were now determined by the Church and thereby made Diuina dogmata Diuyne doctrines though they were not all expresly found in Scriptures So as this sleight in trāslating S. Basils answer That such as were throughly instructed in Gods worde could neuer suffer any syllable therof to be corrupted as though he had meant only of Scripturs is not sincere neyther agreable eyther vnto the letter of the Greeke text or meaning of S. Basill LXVII Let vs see then his third shift to put of this matter which is the same that before we haue mentioned in the first example of Iulian to witt by seeking out differences disparityes betweene the clauses or members that are compared togeather saying That albeit Basil and the Arch-priest may haue some comparison yet not our Orthodoxe King with an Arrian Emperour Basil was sollicited to become an Arrian but the Arch-priest not once touched for any article of faith And so he goeth forward with many contrapositions But I haue spoken sufficiently before of the weaknes of this manner of argument And if we remoue the mentions of some persons that may be offensiue the matters themselues will easily discouer their conformity For if yow had demaunded Modestus the Deputy then in fauour of what religion would he haue S. Basil to conforme himselfe subscribe he would haue said the Orthodoxe no lesse then the Iudges of England do now that require this Oath And yet did not S. Basil thinke so And if any man should haue called that Emperour an Arrian it would haue bene no lesse offensiue then to call a Protestant-Prince at his day a Caluinist or Lutheran notwithstanding that the reason of difference betweene the Catholicks and Arrians at that day be the same that is betweene Catholicks and Protestants at this day to witt the following or impugning of the vniuersall knowne Church descending from Christes tyme vnto Saint Basils and from Saint Basils to ours LXVIII There remayne yet 3. or 4. other exāples mentioned by the Cardinall in his Epistle to the Archpriest wherof the first two are of S. Peter and Marcellinus the Pope whose fortitude and diligence in rysing agayne he desyreth him to imitate if perhaps he followed their infirmity in falling The other two are of S. Gregorie and S. Leo two holy and learned Popes and for that cause both of them surnamed the Great who do set downe in dyuers places the obligation that all Catholicke Christian men haue to hold vnion and subordination with the Sea Apostolicke Vnto the first two examples as there is litle said but disparityes only sought out betweene Peter and Marcellinus and the story also of Marcellinus called in question so I leaue the same to the Cardinall himselfe to treate more at large for so much as in his former books workes he hath handled the same sufficiently as also the third obiection made against S. Gregorie about refusing the name of Vniuersall Bishop And the same I must say of the 4. also S. Leo whome the Apologer confesseth to be truly alledged against him for exalting the Authority of S. Peter and firmitie of his faith which he putteth of with this scoffe borrowed from D. Iohn Reynolds his booke of Conference in the Tower That as Tully said to Hortensius the Orator when he praised immoderatly eloquence That he would lift her vp to heauē that himselfe might go vp with her so would S. Leo lift vp S. Peter with prayses to the sky that he being his heire might go vp also and be exalted with him LXIX And after this scorne he picketh out diuers sentences of S. Leo his works which seeme somewhat odious to contayne ouermuch praise exaltation of S. Peter his Authority all takē out of the said Reynolds Booke as Reynoldes himselfe had takē the greatest part of thē out of M. Iewell to whome the same was very sufficiently answered before by D. Harding and the most of them shewed to be meere calumniations The first and chiefe wherof is this That our Lord did take S. Peter into the fellowship of indiuisible vnity which S. Leo his aduersaries going about to wrest to an absurd sense to wit that this indiuisible vnity must eyther be in person or nature with Christ D. Harding sheweth playnly by S. Leo his owne words sense and drift that he meant it only of the indiuisible

vnity or fellowship of the high name of Rocke of the Church which Christ our Sauiour the chiefe and fundamentall Rocke imparted to none but to S. Peter and consequently that vnity of name of Rocke was indiuisible betwene them which if eyther M. Iewell or M. Reynolds or our Apologer would haue equally considered they needed not to go about to disgrace so ancient a Father with so meere a cauill or at leastwise it being once answered they ought not to haue so oftē repeated it againe without some new matter or reason for the same or impugnation of the former answere LXX But I will not trouble yow with any more at this tyme albeit there ensue in the Apology diuers other poynts that might be stood vpon not for that they conteyne any great substance of matter but for that they seeme to proceed out of no small auersion of mynd acerbity and gall in the writer against all sortes of Catholicke people which CHRIST IESVS amend and mollify and giue him light from heauen to see the truth that he so bitterly impugneth LXXI And as he dealeth with S. Leo so doth he much more in the same kynd with D. or Sanders and Cardinall Bellarmine cyting out of their workes dyuers sentences culled and layd togeather that seeme lesse respectiue to the Authority of temporall Kings and Princes and all this to incite more his Ma. tie against them and those of their Religion and fynally against the Cardinall he concludeth in these wordes That God is no more contrary to Belial light to darknes and heauen to hell then Bellarmines estimation of Kings is to Gods Which is a very passionate Conclusion if yow consider it well for that setting asyde the preheminēce for iudging in matters of Religion which in his Controuersyes he proueth both by Scripture and testimony of all antiquity to appertayne to Bishops and not to Princes so was practised for 300. yeares after Christ when few or no Kings or Emperours were yet Christians in all other poyntes he speaketh so reuerently of them and defendeth their Supreme Authority with as great respect as any Authour perhaps hath euer done before him And to pretermit other places let the Reader but looke ouer the first 16. Chapters of his Booke de Laicis and he shall fynd not only the Authority of Princes proued to be from God by many Scriptures Fathers Councels Reasons and other Authorityes of Saints against Anabaptists Atheists and other miscreants of our tyme but the quality also and excellent power of the said Princely Authority so exalted both for making of lawes iudging condemning waging warre and like actions of supreme power as will easily refute this cauillation LXXII And among other propositions tending to that effect he hath this in the beginning of his eleuenth Chapter which he proueth largely and of purpose throughout the same not only That Temporall Princes are to be obeyed out of Conscience or for Conscience sake but also Quod lex Ciuilis non minùs obligat in Conscientia quàm lex Diuina That the Cyuil law of the Temporall Prince doth no lesse bynd the Subiect in Conscience thē the law that commeth immediatly from God himself And how then is Cardinall Bellarmyne said heere to be no lesse contrary to God concerning Kings Authority then light to darknes and heauen to hell But especially if yow consider further that when Cardinall Bellarmyne in that booke commeth to treat of the Authority of Temporall Princes in matter of Religion though he set downe this Conclusion That Non pertinet ad eos Iudicium de Religione The authority of iudging of Religion which is true or false belongeth not vnto them but vnto Bishops yet Pertinet ad eos defensio Religionis the defence and protection of Religion appertayneth vnto them as also the cyuill gouernmēt in cyuill matters ouer all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall which is so much as a Catholicke man can giue to Caesar reseruing to God that which is Gods LXXIII And albeit this might be sufficiēt to shew the tooth that is held against Cardinall Bellarmine and the ardent appetite these Ministers haue to disgrace him in somewhat yet am I inforced to lay forth some few examples more wherby as in a cleere glasse the indifferent Reader will see behold and wonder also at the manner of dealing vsed against him to that end LXXIV And now we haue already seene what general Conclusions haue bene gathered against him That he vseth to contradict himselfe wittingly so often as euer he is pressed with any hard argument by his Aduersary That his common tricke is to tell the sentence of his Authour without his sense That he seeketh euery-where to debase Kingly authority and the like Which generalityes as in truth and reason they may not be inferred but vpon proofe and induction of many particularyties so when it commeth to tryall yow haue seene not so much as any one particuler sufficiently proued Now shall yow heare some more examples of calumnious dealing with him LXXV Pag. 92. the Apologer speaking of S. Gregorie the Great and going about to interpret those wordes of his alleadged by the Cardinall where he calleth the Sea Apostolicke Caput fidei the Head of faith in regard of the direction in matters of Faith that is to be taken from thence as from the Head the Apologer would haue it vnderstood that for so much as in that place he speaketh to the Bishop of Palermo about the vse of the Pall accustomed to be gyuen by the sea Apostolicke to Archbishops S. Gregories meaning is that the Sea Apostolicke of Rome is head only in matters of Cerimonyes and then he inferreth thus VVhich sense saith he if yow will not admit giue me leaue to say that once of one Gregorie which Bellarmyne himselfe saith often of many of the Fathers Minùs cautè locutus est Gregorie spake not so aduisedly And the latin translation hath Quod ille de multis saepe dicit ex omni numero Patrū That Bellarmyne saith it often of many and of all sortes of Fathers to wit that they spake inconsideratly and yet when I went to examyne the two places of Bellarmynes workes cyted by our Apologer in the margent I found a strange abuse to wit no such thing at all spoken of the Fathers but only of one Nicolaus de Lyra made a Christian of a Iew not much aboue two hundred yeares past who seeming by some words of his to hold a certayne extrauagāt opiniō that S. Peter S. Paul were not put to death at Rome but at Hierusalem against the generall consent of all antiquity Cardinal Bellarmyne expoundeth first what his true meaning was to witt nothing in deed differing from the Fathers expositions and namely of S. Hierome and then addeth Quanquam minùs cautè locutus est c Albeit Lyranus in his manner of speach was not so wary as he might haue byn in giuing

suspicion of so absurd an opinion and so contrary to all the ancient Fathers Heere then yow see how matters are strayned That which Cardinall Bellarmyne speaketh only of Nicolaus Lyranus vpon so iust occasion as this was is extended by our Apologer to often many and all sortes of Fathers Is this good dealing How can the Apologer defend himself in this place from willfull exaggeration and voluntary mistaking In the other place cyted by him lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2. there is no such matter at all But let vs see some other like examples LXXVI Pag 108. he setteth downe this generall odious proposition-out of Bellarmyne That Kings are rather slaues then Lordes And may a man thinke this to be true or likely that so rude a proposition should come from Bellarmine Looke vpon the place by him cyted lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 7. yow will maruaile extremly at this manner of proceeding For that in this very place yow shall fynd that the Cardinall doth most exalt and confirme by Scriptures Fathers and other arguments the dignity and authority of the cyuill Magistrate among Christians And in the next precedent Chapter before this cyted he hath this begining The fourth reason saith he to proue the lawfulnes and dignity of the Cyuill Magistrate against the Anabaptists is from the efficiēt cause to witt God the Authour therof from whom it is certayne that Cyuill power proceedeth as S. Augustine proueth throughout his whole fourth and fifth bookes De Ciuitate Dei and it is euident by the Scriptures for that God saith By me Kings do raigne c. LXXVII So Bellarmine and then passing to the next Chapter heere cyted which is the seuenth he proueth the same by another argument which is That in the state of Innocency if Adam had not synned wee should haue had Cyuil subiection and gouernment and consequently it cānot be thought to be euill or brought in by sinne or for the punnishment of synne as the Anabaptistes affirmed but must needs be of God from God True it is saith he that seruile or slauish subiection was brought in after the fall of Adam and should not haue byn in the state of Innocency but cyuill subiection should And then he sheweth the differences betweene these two sortes of gouernment and subiections to witt that the one which is the seruile tendeth wholy to the vtility and emolument of him that gouerneth and nothing to them that are gouerned But the other which is cyuill and politick tendeth principally to the profit of them that are gouerned therby So as if there be any seruitude saith Bellarmine but he meaneth not slauish in this Ciuill principality it falleth rather vpon him that gouerneth the people to their owne vtility then vpon the subiectes that receaue the said vtility therby And so are Bishops called the seruantes of their flockes and the Pope himselfe The Seruant of seruants and S. Augustine vpon those wordes of our Sauiour in S. Matthews Ghospell He that will be made first or chiefe among you must be the seruant of all the rest doth proue at large that In Ciuili Principatu magis s●ruus est qui praeest quàm qui subest In a Ciuill Principality he is more a seruant that gouerneth to other mens profit then he that obeyeth to his owne LXXVIII This is all that Cardinall Bellarmyne hath about this matter wherin he doth scarce name a King as yow see but Bishops and Popes to be seruants in the gouermēts of those whome they gouerne though he include good Kings in like manner putting this difference betwene a good King a Tyrant out of Aristotle That a good king gouerneth to the profit of his Subiects wherin he is their seruant in effect though not their slaue as this man odiously vrgeth and a Tyrant that turneth all to his owne vtility without respect of those whome he gouerneth And is this so absurd doctrine Or doth this iustify the Apologers outragious proposition That Bellarmyne affirmeth Kings to be rather slaues then Lordes Who would not be ashamed of this intemperate accusation LXXIX And now there remayne eleuen places more of like quality alleadged by the Apologer out of Cardinall Bellarmynes workes which being examined by the Authors wordes meaning and sense haue the same want of sincerity which the precedent had The second is That Kings are not only Subiects to Popes to Bishops to Priests but euen to Deacons This is a playne cauill for the fault if any be falleth vpon S. Chrysostome and not vpon the Cardinall whose wordes are these S. Chrysostome in his eyghtie and three Homilie vpon S. Matthewes ghospell doth subiect Kings and Princes in Ecclesiasticall matters not only to Bishops but also to Deacons For thus he speaketh to his Deacon Si Dux quispiam si Consul si is qui Diademate ornatur c. If a Duke if a Consul if one that weareth a Crowne commeth to the Sacramēt vnworthily restrayne him and forbid him for that thou hast greater power then he What fault hath Cardinall Bellarmine heere in alledging the words and iudgement of S. Chrysostome LXXX The third place is That an Emperour must content himself to drinke not only after a Bishop but after a Bishops Chaplin But these wordes are not found in Bellarmine but are odiously framed by the Apologer out of a fact of S. Martyn Bishop of Tewers in France related by auncient Sulpitius in his life that he sitting one day at dynner with the Emperour Maximus and the Emperours officer bringing a cup of wine to his Lord he would not drinke therof first but gaue it to the Bishop to beginne who accepting therof and drinking deliuered the said cup to his Priest to drinke next after him thinking no lay-man to be preferred before a Priest saith Sulpitius But what doth this touch Bellarmine that doth but relate the Story May he in truth be said to ●rouch that an Emperor must be cōtēt to drinke after a Bishops Chaplin Who seeth not this violēt inforcemēt LXXXI His fourth place is this That Kinges haue not their Authority nor office from God nor his law but from the law of Nations Good God! what desyre is here descried of calumniation Let any man read the two places here quoted and he will blesse himselfe I thinke to see such dealing For in the first place his wordes are these Principatus saecularis c. Secular Princedome is instituted by mā is of the law of Nations but Ecclesiasticall Princedome is only from God and by dyuine law which he meaneth expresly of the first institution of those Principalyties or Gouernmentes for that at the beginning God did not immediatly appoynt these particuler and different formes of Temporall gouernment which now the world hath some of Kinges some of Dukes some of Common-wealthes but appoynted only that there should be Gouernment leauing to ech nation to take or choose what they would But the