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 QuestioÌ„ 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 digniâ—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 staÌ„d against him For besydes that which we haue said before of the teÌ„perament 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 coÌ„futation of those modifications saying For yow know that those kind of modifications are nothing els but sleightes subtilityes of SathaÌ„ 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 secoÌ„d 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 TotuÌ„ ad ParteÌ„ to the former as a man can hardly speake of particuler meÌ„bers of a body without naming also the said body as wheÌ„ S. Iames inuegheth against the toÌ„gue 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
Ecclesiasticall Gouernment by Bishops was ordayned immediatly by Christ himselfe for which cause Bellarmine saith in the second place heere alledged That Kingdomes are not immediatly instituted from God but mediatly only by meanes of the people which people therfore may change their formes of gouernment as in many Countryes we see that they haue but yet when any forme of Gouernment is established and Gouernours placed therin their authority and power is from God and to be obeyed out of Conscience vnder payne of damnation as before I haue shewed out of Bellarmyne And he that will read but from his third Chapter de Laicis vnto the 13. shall fynd store of assertions proofes to that effect to omitt many other places throughout his workes So as the former proposition That Kings haue not their Authority nor office from God nor his law is very fraudulently sett downe For if he vnderstand that their forme of Principality and Office therin is not immediatly from Gods institution but by meanes of humane lawes of succession election or the like it is true But if he meane that their Authority is not from God eyther mediate or immediate or induceth not obligation of Conscience in obeying them as it seemeth he would haue his Reader to thinke it is most false And the Apologer ought not to haue walked in these obscurityes if he had meant vprightly LXXXII I am weary to wade any further in these obiections and yet will I not let passe to note three more though most briefly and almost in three words leauing the rest to be examined by the Reader himselfe The first is That Church-men are as farre aboue Kings as the soule is aboue the body The other That Obedience due to the Pope is for Conscience sake The third That Obedience due to Kings is only for certayne respects of order and policy The first and last being meere calumniations and the other not denyed by vs. For as for the first though the words heere mentioned be not in Bellarmyne yet the comparison it self of Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers in the Church vnto the soule and body is the comparison of S. Gregorie Nazianzen related only by Bellarmyne and consequently it must needs follow as the same Father also inferreth that so much more eminent as the soule is aboue the body so much more excellent is the power Ecclesiasticall aboue Temporall which S. Chrisostome in like manner proueth at large in his books de Sacerdotio So as this is not Bellarmynes comparison but of the said two auncient Fathers and consequently Bellarmyne is not here reprehended but they LXXXIII The other two places if they be two and not one but made two for multiplying of odious matter against vs haue byn so fully answered by vs before as we shall need to say no more heere therof For as ObedieÌ„ce is due out of Conscience vnto the Pope other Bishops Spirituall Gouernours in spirituall Gouernments by the Apostles precept Obediâ—e Praepositis vestris c. Obey your Prelates be subiect vnto them for they watch as being to render accompt for your soules So the same Apostle hath commanded also due Obedience to Temporall Magistrates in temporall affayres by the same obligation of Conscience as Cardinall Bellarmyne doth shew at large in the places by me alledged And I maruaile with what Conscience the Apologer heere can deny it cyting a place for the same in his margent which hath no such matter as he would inferre That not for Conscience but only for certayne respects c. For that treating of the obligation of Obedience to temporall lawes in temporall affayres his second proposition is Non sunt exempti Clerici ab obedientia legum Ciuilium Clergie-men are not exempted from the obedience of temporall lawes And in another place before cyted Lex Ciuilis non minùs obligat in conscientia quà m lex diuina The Temporall law byndeth no lesse in conscience then the Diuine So as all those odious matters are but frandulently layd togeather to make Catholicks their cause hatefull especially vnto him whom vnto they desyre most of all men vnder God to yield most satisfaction for their temporall dutyes and would hope also to effectuate it if these make-bate Ministers did not by their continuall incitations clamours and false suggestions disturbe the same and renew daylie iealosyes and distrustes in his Ma. ties mynd against vs. The Conclusion WHERFORE to draw to an end of this distastfull argument it cannot but grieue afflict much the hartes of all that loue eyther Prince or Countrey looke into the naturall sequels of like proceedings to see matters runne dayly vnto such extremityes as they do that by such instigators as are both both lesse carefull to foresee the hurts both priuate publick that may ensue lesse able to remedy theÌ„ when they fall out The principall of whom being the first chiefe motors besydes the generall hatred wherin they are with both extremes of opposite in Religion are so interessed in like maÌ„ner by the spoyles rapines which their rauenous Purseuants daylie bring home out of their continuall searches and ransacks of innocent mens houses goodes and persons as litle moderation may be expected from them LXXXV Would God it might please his dyuine Ma. tie so to inlighten and illustrate that excellent vnderstanding of our Prince and Soueraigne as he may see the many great inconuenieÌ„ces that do must follow vpon so violeÌ„t courses as these men for their owne vtilitie do suggest prosecute Nothing can be more pittifull then to see a Noble House diuided in itselfe the one to beate hunt pursue the other this to be their continuall exercise especially of Children vnder the sight of their owne Father louing them all and desyring to be beloued Ah! what sollicitude must there needs be in that Fathers hart And were it not a great synne to increase the same by casting in oyle to augmeÌ„t the flame LXXXVI Would God his Ma. ties eares and those of his wise Counsell could reach into these partes beyond the seas and to all forrayne nations of Christendome besydes to heare what is said what is writteÌ„ what is discoursed by men of best iudgment in this behalfe not only in regard of iustice and piety but in reason also of State and Policie no man being of so simple vnderstanding but that he must see that so notorious differeÌ„ces of Subiects for ReligioÌ„ pursued with such hostility among theÌ„selues must weaken greatly their forces and make them lesse esteemed both of friends and aduersaryes So as besydes internall dangers which are euer consequent vpon such inward diuisions if forrayne occasions should be offred vs agayne as in former tymes they haue beene by forrayne warres we should not know how to trust the one the other LXXXVII The cryes coÌ„playntes of these afflictions running throughout Christendome do giue strange admiration vnto men and do worke
more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But lett one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in poynts contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Daniel that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Region of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence o all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement nor would they do as he had appoynted them XXXIX The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spirituall Superiour into the desert notwithstanding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary XL. I lett passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Asyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flatt against him and for vs as yow haue seene XLI And much more do make against him his Authorityes alledged out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same poynt that we heere hold that in temporall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I maruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iulian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiours serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he XLII And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen thus do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we will obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall XLIII And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sorte as is lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lesse then God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speach also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for much as the Emperour at that tyme were Heathen Gentils and consequently were not to be obeyed in any poynt against Christian faith or Religion XLIV The like playne doctrine haue the words of Iustinus Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cyted heere in the third place to witt VVe only adore God and in all other things wee cheerfully performe seruice to yow professing yow to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholiks say the same at this day that in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Ma. tie acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to god in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somwhat to say against vs XLV The other two senteÌ„ces in like manner cyted out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes souldiours of the Emperours That he neyther ought or could resist Neyther of them do make any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are heere nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affayres the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular â—orces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiours must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S. Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craftily dissembleth and saith not a word therof XLVI The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Iribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the
thought good to insert heere immediatly the contrary conclusions to all the poynts and Articles wherof this other late Oath doth consist wherby it may appeare what vnreasonable and rebellious poynts he would dryue his Ma. ties Subiects vnto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceaued For he that shall refuse to take this Oath must of necessity hold these propositions following First that our Soueraignâ— Lord King Iames is not the lawfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Ma. ties Dominions Secondly that the Pope by his owne authority may depose c. But who doth not see what a simple fallacy this is which the Logicians do call A composito ad diuisa from denying of a compound to inferre the denyall of all the parcels therin conteyned As if some would say that Plato was a man borne in Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Greeke language most excellent of all other Philosophers and would require this to be confirmed by an Oath some Platonist perhaps would be coÌ„teÌ„t to sweare it but if some Stoicke or Peripateticke or Professour of some other Sect in Philosophy should refuse the said Oath in respect of the last clause might a man inferre against him in all the other clauses also Ergò he denyeth Plato to be a Man He denyeth him to be borne in Greece he denyeth him to be of an excelleÌ„t wit he denyeth him to be skilfull in the Greeke tongue c. Were not this a bad kynd of arguing X. So in like manner if an Arrian or Pelagian Prince should exact an Oath at his Subiects hands concerning diuers articles of Religion that were belieued by them both and in the end or middle therof should insert some clauses sounding to the fauour of their owne sect for which the Subiect should refuse the whole body of that Oath as it was conceyued could the other in iustice accuse him for denying all the seuerall articles of his owne Religion also which therin are mencyoned Who seeth not the iniustice of this manner of dealing And yet this is that which our Apologer vseth heere with Catholicks affirming in good earnest that he which refuseth the whole body of this Oath as it is conceyued in respect of some clauses therof that stand against his Conscience about matters of Religion refuseth consequently euery poynt and parcell therof and must of necessity hold in the first place that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is not the lawfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Ma. ties Dominions The contrary wherof all Catholicks do both confesse and professe consequently it is a meere calumniation that they deny this But let vs see how he goeth forward in prouing this whole Oath to be lawfull to a Catholicke mans Conscience XI And that the world saith he may yet further see his Ma. ties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not proceed from any new inuention of theirs but as it is warranted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone which a famons Councell then togeather with diuers other Councels were so farre from condemning as the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thought good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Ma. tie craueth nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was not expresly and carefully commanded them by the Councels to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not in the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Ma. tie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yow shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the same so as almost euery poynt of that Action and this if ours shall be found to haue relation and agreeance one with the other saue only in this that those old Councels were carefull and straite in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Head of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance So he XII And I haue alledged his discourse at large to the end yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceeding He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councels of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler poynt of Equiuocation But let any man read those Councels which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I do write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall not then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that dryueth him to such manner of dealing as to auouch Euery point of that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of this Oath XIII True it is that those Councels of Toledo vpon certayne occasions which presently we shall declare do recommend much to the subiects of Spayne both Gothes and Spaniards that they do obserue their Oath of fidelity made vnto their Kings especially vnto Sisenandus for whose cause principally this matter was first treated in the fourth Councel of Toledo but no speciall forme is prescribed by the said Councell nor is Equiuocation so much as named therin but only as hath bene said Iurare mendaciter to sweare falsely as the wordes of the Councel are Which how far it is from the true nature of Equiuocation hath bene lately and largly demonstrated as yow know XIV The cause of the treatie of this matter in the 4. Councell of Toledo was for that one Sisenandus a Noble man of the bloud of the Gothes and a great Captaine taking opportunitie of the euill life of his King Sâ—intila whome he had serued did by some violence as most of the Spanish Historiographers write though confirmed afterward by the Common-wealth and proued a very good King and as Paulus Aemilius in his French Historie recordeth by helpe of Dagobert King of France put out the said Suintila and fearing lest the same people that had made defection to him might by the same meanes fall from him againe he procured in the third yeare of his raigne this fourth Councell of Toledo to be celebrated of 70. Prelates as some say and as others of 68. hoping by their meanes that his safety in the Crowne should be confirmed Wherupon it is set downe in the Preface of the said Councell that comming into the same accompanyed with many noble and honorable persons of his trayne Coram sacerdotivus Dei humi prostratus cum lachrymis gemitibus pro se interueniedum postulauit He prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God with
to be whipped at Rome the latin Interpreter turneth it Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit as though he had bene scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh or whipped vp and downe Rome wheras so many hundreds being yet aliue that saw that Ceremony which was no more but the laying on or touching of the said Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell in token of submitting himself to Ecclesiasticall discipline it maketh them both to wonder and laugh at such monstrous assertions comming out in print and with the same estimation of punctuall fidelity doe they measure other things here auouched IXL. As for exāple that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house glad that he could escape so too for which he cyteth Houeden and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope in respect wherof he saith the King had iust cause to be afraid But the Author doth plainly shew the contrary first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution where no such pennāce is appointed secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennances which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas for being some occasiō of his death doth refute therby this narration as fraudulent and vnsyncere that the King was whipped like a school-boy by order of the Pope as though it had not come frō his owne free choice and deuotion L. That other instance of the Emperour that lay agroofe on his belly which I suppose he meaneth of Fredericke the first and suffered Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke is a great exaggeratiō and refuted as fabulous by many reasons and authorityes of Baronius to whome I remit me The other in like māner of Celestinus the Pope that should with his foote beate of the Crown from the head of Henry the sixt Emperour being only mentioned first of all others by Houeden an English Authour and from him taken by Ranulph of Chester no other writer of other nations eyther present at his Coronation as Godesridus Viterbiensis his Secretary or others afterward as Platina Nauclerus Sabellicus Blondus Sigonius Crantzius so much as mentioning the same though yet they write of his Coronation maketh it improbable and no lesse incredible then the former LI. That also of the Emperour Philip affirmed to be slaine by Otho his opposite Emperour at the incitation of Pope Innocentius the third is a meere slaūder For that according to all histories not Otho the Emperour but an other Otho named of VVitilispack a priuate man one of his owne Court vpon a priuate grudge did slay him And albeit Vrspergensis that followed the faction of the Emperours against the Popes doe write that he had heard related by some the speech here sett downe that Innocentius should lay That he would take the Crowne from Philip or Philip should take the Myter from him yet he saith expresly Quod non erat credendum that it was not to be belieued And yet is it cyted here by our Apologer as an vndoubted truth vpon the onely authority of Vrspergensis in the margent LII The like may be said of the tale of Frederick the second attempted to haue bene poysoned first in Apulia by Pope Innocentius the 4. and afterward effectuated by one Mansredus as hyred by the Pope which is a very tale in deede and a malicious tale For that he which shall read all the Authors that write of his life or death as Platina whome the Protestants hold for free in speaking euill of diuers Popes Blondus Sabellicus Nauclerus Crantzius Sigonius others shall fynd that as they write very wicked thinges committed by him in his life so talking of his first danger in Apulia by greuous sicknes they make for the most part no mention of poyson at all and much lesse as procured by the Pope Innocentius praysed for a very holy man and to haue proceded iustly against Fredericke And secondly for his death they agree all that it was not by poyson but by stopping his breath and stifelyng him in his bed with a pillow by Mansredus his owne bastard Sonne to whome he had giuen the Princedome of Tarentum for feare least he should take it from him againe and bestow it vpon Conradus his other soone But that the Pope was priuy to this or hyred him to doe the fact as our Apologer affirmeth there is no one word or sillable in these Authors therof LIII But you will say that he cyteth one Petrus de Vineis in his margent and Cuspinian in the life of Fredericke both which are but one Authour for that Cuspinian professeth to take what he saith out of Petrus de Vineis which Petrus was a seruant to Fredericke and a professed enemy to the Pope and wrote so partially of this contention as Pope Innocentius himself wrote Libros Apologeticos as Blondus recordeth Apologeticall Bookes to coniute the lyes of this Petrus de Vineis in his life tyme And yet yow must note that he auoucheth not all that our Apologer doth nor with so much stomacke or affirmatiue assertion For thus relateth Cuspinian the matter out of Petrus de Vineis Non potuit cauere c. The Emperour could not auoyd but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poyson the 37. yeare of his raigne and 57. of his age on the very same day that he was made Emperour For wheras at the towne of Florenzola in Apulia hauing receaued poyson he was dangerously sicke and at length by diligence of Phisitions had ouercome the same he was stifeled by Mansredus his bastard sonne begotten of a noble woman his Concubine with a pillow thrust into his mouth whether it were that Mansredus did it as corrupted by his enemyes or by the Pope or for that he did aspire to the Kingdome of Sicilia So he LIV. And albeit as yow see he saith more herin against the Pope then any of the other Authours before mentioned for that he desired to cast some suspitions vpon him yet doth he it not with that bold asseueration that our Apologer doth saying That both his first sicknes was by poyson of the Popes procurement and his murthering afterward by hyring of Manfredus to poyson him againe whereas the other ascribeth not the first poysoning to the Pope if he were poysoned neyther doth so much as mention the second poyson but onely the stifeling and finally leaueth it doubtfull whether the same proceeded from the Emperours enemyes or from the Pope or from his Sonnes owne ambition and emulation against his brother LV. To the other obiection or rather calumniation out of Paulus Iouius that Alexander the third did write to the Soldane That if he would liue quietly he should procure the murther of the Emperour sending him his picture to that end It is answered that no such
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 efficieÌ„t 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 caÌ„not 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 sâ—ruus est qui praeest quà m 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 gouermeÌ„ts 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 SacrameÌ„t 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 â—rouch that an Emperor must be coÌ„teÌ„t to drinke after a Bishops Chaplin Who seeth not this violeÌ„t inforcemeÌ„t 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 maÌ„ 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