most excellent Maiestie that nowe is appointeth Bishops and Priests so king Iosaphat appointed Priestes and Levites so king Salomon appointed Sadock 2 Secondly as her Maiestie deposeth Priests so king Salomon deposed Abiathar 3 Thirdly as her Maiestie commandeth her Bishops in Englande to preach the Gospell to administer the Sacraments to reforme abuses and to execute censures Ecclesiasticall according to the Scriptures so commanded king Iosaphat his Priests in Ierusalem to decide all controversies arising about the lawe about commandements about ceremonies about iustifications and to teach his people their duetie therein 4 Fourthly as king Iosaphat appointed Amarias ruler in spiritual causes and Zabadias governour in secular affaires distinguishing their offices and limiting their iurisdictions so doth her Maiestie referre Ecclesiasticall affayres to her cleargie men and matters of state to her secular lords neither confounding their functions nor disabling their persons 5 Fiftly as King Iosaphat did neither beare the Arke nor burne incense nor offer vp sacrifice nor initiate his priests so neither doth her Maiestie preach the Gospell administer the Sacraments consecrate her Bishops or personally execute any Churchly function And therefore are the Iesuite Bellarmine his words most absurd when he saith Et iam reipsa Calvinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam est summus pontifex And nowe in very deede a woman is Pope of the Calvinists in Englande Hee might more probably have saide that a woman was once Pope to Romish Iesuits his brethren For so much he may read this day painted vpon the Church walles in Syenna which in the late repairing of that famous Church the Bishop would not suffer to be defaced albeit the Iesuits made such request vnto him I will omit to speake of king David king Iosias king Ezechias and others who all practised like iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires one onely text of the Scripture shalbe sufficient with popish glosses vpon the same Thus therefore is it written by the holy Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To thee to thee alone haue I sinned Where the gemination of to thee after the Hebrew manner and custome argueth the vehemencie of the subiection and gravitie of the trespasse that is David beeing king sinned onely to the king of all kings God him selfe Which Euthimius in his glosse vpon the same words confirmeth in this manner Tibi soli peccavi cum sim rex te solum commissorum à me scelerum iudicem habeam tibi soli peccasse videor hoc est tibi soli iudici subiicior caeterorum enim omniū ego dominus sum ob potentiam meam licere mihi videntur quaecunque libuerint To thee onely have I sinned because beeing a king and having thee onely iudge over my trespasses I seeme to haue sinned to thee only that is I am onely subiect to thee as to my iudge For I am lord over all others and in respect of my magnificence whatsoever doth please me seemeth to be lawfull for me Raynerius Snoygoudanus and divers others have set downe the like interpretation vpon this portion of Scripture The popish glosse vpon the same text hath these words Tibi soli quia rex omnibus superior tantum à deo puniendus est To thee onely because the king is above all men and can onely be punished of God Nicolaus Lyranus a man of no small account with the papists glosseth the said text in this manner Tibi solipeccavi scilicet tanquam iudici punire potenti peccaverat enim contra Vriam alios occasione huius interfectos tamen quia er at rex non habebat iudicem superiorem qui posset eum punire nisi Deum To thee onely have I sinned that is to say to thee onely as to the iudge and him that can punnish For he had no we sinned against Vrias and others whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion but because he was a King he had no superiour iudge that could punnish him save God alone What can be more plainly spoken for if none but God be superiour to the King if none but God can iudge the King if none but God cā punish the King all which the Popes owne doctours affirme then doubtles can not the Pope depose the King The King therefore by popish resolution is greater and above the Pope Yea which is wonderful Thomas Aquinas who is as it were the platforme and patterne or Idaea according to which the Popes of late yeares doe fashion and frame their lawes and whose doctrine is as the Gospell with the Papists doth confirme Lyra his exposition in these words Tibi soli peccavi dicit glossa quodrex non habèt hominem qui sua fact a diiudicet sed quantum ad vim directivam legis princeps subditur legi propria voluntate To thee onely have I sinned the glosse saith the King hath no man that can iudge his doings but yet touching the directive force of the lawe the Prince is subiect of his owne accord vnto the law Which Victoria vttereth wisely and learnedly in these words Leges latae à rep obligant omnes ergo etiam sifer antur à rege obligant ipsum regem confirmatur quia in aristocr atico principatu senatus consulta obligant ipsos senatores auctores illorum in populari regimine plebiscit a obligant ipsum populum ergo similiter leges regiae obligant ipsum regem licet sit voluntarium regi condere legem tamen non est in voluntate sua non obligari aut obligari sicut in pactis libere enim qui squis paciscitur pactis tamen tenetur Lawes which the common-weale maketh binde all therefore if the King make them they binde him also And it is confirmed because in the aristocraticall government the lawes of the senate binde the fenatours the auctors thereof and in popular regiment the decrees of the common people binde the people ergo in like manner the kings laws binde the king And although the king make lawes voluntarie yet is it not in his will to be bound or vnbound as in covenants for every one maketh covenants voluntarily and yet is every one bound by his covenants Ambrose who freeth Kings from all lawes made by man shall conclude this point Thus doth he write Qui tenentur legibus audent suum neg are peccatum de dignantur rogare indulgentiam quam petebat qui nullis tenebatur legibus humanis They that are bound to lawes dare denie their sinne and disdaine to aske forgivenesse which he desired that was bound to no law of man And againe he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibus tenebatur neque enim vllis adpoenam vocantur legibus tuti imperij potestate homini ergo non peccavit cui non tenebatur obnoxius He was in deede a king he was bound to no lawes for kings beeing free by the power of Empyre are not punnished by any lawes He therefore finned not to
peccata committere Albeit the Pope as Pope can not erre that is to say can not set downe any errour as an article of our faith because the holy Ghost will not that permit neverthelesse as he is a private person so may he erre even in faith as he may doe other sinnes and for ful proofe of this point only Sylvester Prieras is sufficient who albeit he extol the Popes power above Kings and Emperours and Angels in heaven their authoritie yet doeth he confesse that our holy father the Pope in casu haeresis both may be iudged and deposed yea this point is very manifest in many texts of the popish Canon-law for in one place it is thus written Oves quae suo pastori commissae sunt eum nec reprehendere nisi à fide exorbitaverit nec ullatenus accusare possunt The sheepe that are committed to the Pope their Pastor neither can reproove him nor any way accuse him unlesse he shall swarve from the faith In another place it is said that though the Pope be never so wicked though he carry thousands with himselfe headlong to hell yet must no man iudge him unlesse he be an heretique Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est judicandus nisi deprehendatur à fide devius Because saith the Popes lawe he must iudge all and none iudge him unlesse he be found to have forsaken the faith Iosephus Angles in his booke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe confirmeth this matter in these wordes Papa haereticus ut apostata ab universali Concilio deponi potest ratio est quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus qui non sit in illa religione professus it a neque potest esse Papa si fide ecclesiae careat The Pope being an heretike as also an apostate may be deposed by a generall Councel and the reason is because as none can be a prelate of any religion which is not professed in that religion so neither can he be Pope that holdeth not the faith of the Church The 4. Conclusion MAny Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith and become flat heretikes This proposition though it seeme strange to many shalbe prooved God willing effectually and that by the expresse testimonies of great popish doctors For it is so certen that Pope Honorius was an heretike as their eight solemne Councel holden at Constantinople can not deny the same Melchior Canus giveth this sentence of the said Honorius At Honorium quomodo ab errore vindicabit quem haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus in carmine de septem synodis Tharasius ad summos Sacerdotes Antiochiae Alexandriae Sanctae urbis ut septima Synodo act 3. scriptum est Theodosius cum Synodo sua Hierosolymitana in confessione fidei quae habetur eadem actione 3. Epiphanius respondens haereticis iu conspectu Concilij eiusdem act 6. Tota demùm ipsa septima synodus actione ultima in Epistola ad omnes sacerdotes clericos But howe will Pighius deliver pope Honorius from errour whome to have bene an heretike witnesseth Psellus in his verses of the seven synodes Tharasius to the patriarks of Antioch of Alexandria of the holy city as it is written in the 7. Synode Theodosius with his Synode at Hierusalem in the confession of their faith Epiphanius answering to the heretikes in the sight of the said Councell finally the seventh Synode wholly in the last action and in their Epistle to all priests Clergie men Viguerius holdeth for a constant position that pope Anastasius erred in an article of the faith his wordes be these Si dicamus quòd summus Pontifex errare potest in animo suo concipere aliquem articulum orthodoxae fidei contrarium etiam priuatim proferre ut legitur de Anastasio 2. dicendum quòd summus Pontifex ut privata persona errare potest non tamen ut est summus Pontifex If we say that the pope may erre and conceive in his minde some article contrarie to the Catholike faith and pronounce the same also privately answere must be made that the pope may erre as a private person but not as he is Pope Nicolaus Lyranus uttereth this matter so plainly as no mā can long stand in doubt therof these be his words Ex quo patet quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominih ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae vel secularis quia multi principes summi Pontifices alij inferiores inventi sunt apostatasse à fide propter quod Ecclesia consist it in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera confessio fidei veritatis VVhereby it is evident that the Church doeth not consist in men by reason of power or dignitie either ecclesiasticall or secular because many Princes and Popes and other of the inferiour sort are found to have swarved from their faith for which cause the Church consisteth in those persons in whome there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and veritie Loe the iudgement of their owne Doctor not they that sit in S. Peters chaire are the true and lawfull successours of S. Peter but they that confesse and preach S. Peters faith and doctrine VVe therefore impugne nothing in popish proceedings but the selfe same which popish Doctors reprooved before us and that in their publique writings published to the world The 5. Conclusion MANY Popes have erred in their publique doctrine of faith and manners Pope Iohn the 22. of that name as witnesseth Okam Erasmus Alphonsus Adrianus others taught the people that the soules of the iust doe not see God before the resurrection yea Gerson that great popish doctor who sometime was Chancellour of Paris affirmeth this matter in these expresse wordes Hoc fecit latroni qui verisimilitèr nondum complever at poenitentiam pro omnibus peccatis suis qui fuit illa hora propria beatificatus vidit Deum facie ad faciem sicut Sancti in Paradiso propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae Ioannis 22. Quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses credidit potius theologis Parisiensibus quà m curiae This he did to the thiefe which by likelihood had not yet accomplished penance for all his sinnes who was blessed in that very houre and sawe God face to face as doe the Saintes in Paradise by reason whereof further appeareth the falshood of the doctrine of pope Iohn which was condemned by the sound of trumpets before K. Philip by the devines of Paris the King beleeved rather the devines of Paris then the court In which words we have to note first that Gerson a voucheth the thiefe crucified with Christ to have seene God face to face in that houre so to be blessed Secondly that he reproveth the false doctrin of Pope Iohn Thirdly that his doctrine was
man to whome he was not subiect Most impudent therefore and intollerable is the Popes insolencie when he exalteth himselfe above Kings and Emperours threatning them that he can depose them from their scepters and regalties and dispossesse them of their Empires and dominions Which for all that Cardinall Allen is not ashamed to avovch with lying lippes in the Popes behalfe in that his disloyall pamphlet which he published without name in defense of the Seminaries But such flatterie of feyned titles a Pope of famous memorie shall confute Gregorie surnamed the great himselfe beeing Pope of Rome at what time as he was appointed by Mauricius the Emperour to publish a certaine law sent him from the Emperour did not refuse to accomplish the said Emperours assignment but acknowledged him by duetie bound to execute his commandement therein albeit he thought the law in some part disagreeable to Gods will This to be so the Popes owne words shall witnesse which be these Ego quidem iussioni subiectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam sereni ssimis dominis nunciavi vtrobique ergo quae debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensiminime tacui I subiect to your commandement have caused the same law to be sent through diverse parts of the lande and because the lawe doth not agree with Gods will behold I have intimated so much vnto your Maiestie by my epistle I have therefore discharged my duetie in both respects as who have yielded my obedience vnto the Emperour neither concealed what I thought in Gods behalfe These are the Popes words besides many others in the same epistle to the like effect Which being vttered by the chiefest Pope are most effectuall to proove the subiection of Popes vnto Kings 1 For first Pope Gregorie acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his lord 2 Secondly he confesseth him selfe to be the Emperours subiect 3 Thirdly he graunteth that he oweth loyall obedience to the Emperour for which duetie he durst not but publish the Emperours law though in some part it were very rigorous and that least he should have bin guiltie of distoyaltie towards his Prince Now that Romish pontificalitie and pompe of Poperie came vp first by beggerly Canonists who to advance them selves flattered the Pope and gave him more then princely titles the Popes owne deare Doctour who carieth therefore credite on his backe telleth vs who after he hath rehearsed many lordly titles and more then royall power ascribed to the Pope hath these expresse words Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium dederunt Papae cum ipsi essent pauperes rebus doctrina But the glossers of the Popes law gave this dominion and these royall titles vnto the Pope when them selves were blind bayards and beggerly fellowes Thus saith the Popes Doctour and thus we see that povertie and ignorance were the beginning of Pope dome For by reason of povertie they flattered and sought to please and by reason of their ignorance they avouched many things which they did not vnderstand The fourth Conclusion THE Pope had no auctoritie to give dominion of the Indians to the King of Spaine albeit many defend the spanish invasion by vertue of that donation The latter part hereof Victoria sheweth in these wordes Secundus titulus qui praetenditur quidem vehementer asseritur ad instam possessionem illarum provinciarum est exparte summi Pontificis dicunt enim quod summus Pontifex est Monarcha etiam temporalis in toto orbe per consequens quod potuit constituere Hispaniarum reges principes illorum barbarorum it a factum est The second title which is pretended and earnestly affirmed for the iust possession of those provinces consisteth in the Popes graunt For say they the Pope is a temporall Monarch even of the whole worlde and consequently that he could appoint the Kings of Spaine Princes over those Barbarians and so it came to passe The former part of the conclusion Aquinas prooveth in these wordes Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui nunquam fidem susceperunt secundum illud Apostoli 1. Cor. 5. quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare But it belongeth not to the Church to punnish infidelitie in them who never received the saith according to that saying of the Apostle What have I to doe to iudge of those that be not in the Church Dominicus Soto is of the same opinion whose words are these Ad hoc autem respondetur in primis Pontificem neque concessisse imò vero neque vt cum omni reverentia obedientia de sanctissimo Christi vicario loquar concedere potuisse eorum suorumve honorum dominium quasi dominium in eos ipse haberet But to this I answer be it spoken with all reverence and obedience to the most holy Vicar of Christ that neither the Pope did graunt yea neither could he graunt vnto the King of Spaine dominion over those Indians or their goods as though himselfe had dominion over them It followeth in the same Soto Lex fidei dominium rerum ab infidelibus non aufert quod sibi natur a concessit The law of faith doth not take away dominion of possessions from infidels which nature hath graunted them Victoria accordeth to Aquinas and Soto in these words Ex quo patet quodnec iste titulus est idoneus contrabarbaros vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tanquam dominus absolute vel quia non recognoscent dominium Papae Whereby it is plaine that neither this title is sufficient against the barbarians either because the Pope gave those Provinces as beeing absolute lord thereof or for that they doe not recognize the Popes authoritie Iosephus Angles likewise saith Hinc neque poterit alicui regi Christiano potestatem dare vt sibi Indorum regna v surpet non enim est orbis temporalis dominus For this cause he can not give any Christian king auctoritie to vsurpe the kingdomes of the Indians to himselfe for he is not the temporall lord of the world By which testimonies it is cleare that the Pope could not give to the Spanish King any iust title over the Indians because he could not give that which himselfe had not Yet â—hust Emperours hold his bridle and Kings be his footestoole if they will The Corollarie FIrst therefore since all the Apostles were equall with Peter in power authoritie and iurisdiction secondly since all the Apostles received their power immediately from Christ thirdly since all the Apostles had ordinarie calling and iurisdiction as well as Peter had fourthly since Kings have power coactive over Popes and not Popes over Kings fiftly since the Popes pretended power is controlled by his owne popish doctours I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to
cause of dissenting from them Victor relect 4. de potest Papae Concilii propos 17. pag. 157. Decret l b. 2. tit 24. cap. 4. Navarrus de iuditiis notab 3. p. 275 victor de potest papae relect 4. ad 3. argument Covarruvias to 1 c. 20. par 11 in med ipsius col prima Necessitie hath no law the popes mind must be obered The popes doings must be defended because otherwise poperie cannot stand 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extra de statu monachorum cum ad mon. Navarr in enchir cap. 22. par 21. Loe how readily the Pope displeaseth God for the pleasure of man Covarruvias tom 1. cap. 7. par 4. n. 13. col 1. Bellar. lib. i. c. 5. de matrim prope finem Victor in relect 4. de potest papae conc pag. 128. ad primum Covarruv to t. par 2. cap. 7. par 4. n. 14. in medio Mat. c. 19. v. 7. Luc. c. 16. v. 18. 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. vvhat an absurd ansvvere is this Canus lib. 8. de locis theol c 5. p. 246. Vide Victor de potest papae p. 128. Soto in 4. dist 27. p. 48. Heb. c. 7. v. 12. Victor de matrim sect 2. relect 7. p. 280 Victor relect 4 de potest papae prop. 1. pag. 126. Aquin. in lib. 3. sent dist 37. art 4. Antoninus de potest papae part 4. tit 22. cap. 3. par 1. I deeme he be in verie deed Levit. 18. 24. Aquinas in 4. sent dist 4. ar 2. Victor relict 4. de potest papae pag. 129. ad 2. Ioseph Angles in 4. S. p. 1. q. 13. ar 3. Allens vvords disloiall Victor de potest papae conc relect 4 p. 139. Vbi supra pag. 149. Loe for spiritual livings matrimonie and such like dispensations are never denied Victor vbi supag 151. Mat. cap. vlc vers 19. Luc. 22. v. 20. Iohn 20. v 23 Mat. 28. v. 18. Mat. 10. v. 1. Mark 3 v. 14. Luc. 6. v. 14. Victor de potest eccles relect 2. conc 3. p. 84. Cypr. de simppraelat p. 113. Covarruvias to 1. part 2. §. 9. pag. 242. col 4. prope finem 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aug. in serm Petr. Pauli apud Canū Aug. in lib. de agone Christ. cap. 30. tom 3. August de verb. dom serm 13. 10. 10. Concil Const. 6. can 36. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Conc. Carth. 6. can 6. Ruffin lib. 10. hist. Eccles. cap. 6. Hier. epist. ad Evagr. tom 3. fol 150. Victor de potest eccles relect 2 conclus 3. pag. 84. Victor de potest Papae concilii relect 4. pag. 157. Ioseph Ang. in 4. sent q. de clavib diffic 2. conclus prima pag. 6. Magna est veritas praevalet 3. Esdrae 4. 42. Const. Conc. Ses. 4. Basil. Conc. Sess. 2. 3. Gal. 2. 7. 3. Reg. 2. vers 27. 35. 2. Par. 19. 8 9. 2. Par. 19. 10. 2. Par. 19. 11. 1. Par. 23. 2. Par. 35. 2. Par. 31. Psal. 51. Euthimius in psal 50. Glossa ordin in psal 50. Lyranus in psal 50. Aquinas 12. quaest 96. ar 5. ad 3. Victor de potest civili relect 3. pag. 120. Ambr. l. de Apolog David cap. 4. Ibidem cap. 10. Gregor lib. 2. epist. exregist indict 11. epist. 62. cap. 100. Victor de potest Eccl. relect 1. sect 6. p. 39. Victor relect quinta de Indis pag. 188 Aquinas 22. quaest 12. ar 2. in corp Soto in 4. dist 5. ar 10. in med art Victor in relect 5. de Indis pag. 193. Iosep. Angles de sacram ord pag. 518. Eccles. 11. 3 4. Matt. 25. 46. Apoc. 14. 13. Cypr. in serm de mortalit circa medium Ambr. tom i. lib. de bono mortis cap. 2. Hier. in Psal. 105. Hier. tom 9. ad Gal. cap. 6. Aug. in Psal. 36. conc 1. Aug. in quaest evang q. 38. to 4. pag. 249. Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 3. circa medium Hebr. 1. 2 3. Coloss. 1. 16. Apoc 7. 24. 1. Ioh. 1. 8. 2. Cor. 5. 21. Esai c. 43. v. 25 Esai c. 23. v. 5 Gal. c. 3. v. 13. Aquinas in part 3 q. 15. ar 1. ad 5. Aug. in ps 129. to 8. pag. 1036. Aug. ser. 141. de tempore to 10 Deut. 32. v. 4. Aquinas 3. p. quaest 1. ar 2. ad 2. Aug. l. 5. hypognost vltra med sermo 14. de verb. apost l. 1. c. 28. de peccatorū merit remis Hier. in c. 9. Amos prope med capitis Roffēsis apud Domin Soto in 4. sent dist 21. q. 1. art 3 Luc. c. 23. v. 43. Eccles. c. 14. v. 17. Aquinas 22. q. 13. ar 4. ad 2. 1. p. q. 62. ar 9. corpor Dominic Soto in 4. dist 19 quaest 3. ar 1 ad arg 1. Gal. 6. v. 10. Eccle. c. 9. v 5 Hier. in 9. cap. eclesiastes Cypria contr Demetr in fine Aug. epist. 54 tom 2. in initio Infra cap. 9. per totum 2. Cor. 5. v. 7. 8. 1. Cor. c. 15. v. 17. 18. 1 Pet. 2. v. 22. Iohn c. 17. v. 9. 12. Mat. c. 24. v. 24 Chrysost. in liturg prope finem to 5. p. 1377. In oratione funebri pro Satyro to 3. in fine In oratione funeb pro Theod. to 3. p. 52. Ambr. de obitu Valent. p. 12. to 3. Ambt. vbi supra de sing Ambrosius vbi sup Let this be wel noted In missa requiem pro defunctis Soto in 4. dist 19. q. 2. ar 5. in fine Roffensis art 32. advers Luther pag. 328. Ioan. Gers. de vita spirituali lect 1. p. 3. in 1. corollar Bellar. de Rō Pontif. cap. 21. Legendus est Ioseph Ang. sup cap. 7. ar s Aug. l. 22. c. 27. contra faustū Ioseph Angl. in 4. sent part 3. p. 215. Mat. 12. v. 36. This reason convinceth doubtles Bellar. lib. 2. de purgat c. 1. in fine Soto in 4. s. dist 19. q. 3. Idē habeturd 25. can qualis A quini 12. q. 89 ar 2. ad 4. Ioseph Ang. in 4. senten de sacr poenit pag. 219. 1 Hier. in epist ad Chromatium Heliodorum de lib. Solomonis Cyprian in expos Symb. Aug. contra 2. Gaudentii epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. tom 7. Bryto in Prolog Mach. 2 3 1 2 2. Mac. 1. 19. 3 2. Mach. 1. 1. Mach. 9. 4 1. Mach. 6. 2. Mach. 1. 5 2. Mach. 15. 2. Mach. 14. 37. 6 7 Tit. cap. 1. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Acts 17. 28. Arias Mont. in cap. 6. Mat. vers 13. 2. Mach. 12. 43. This Toledo was pope Gregories preacher adviser in al important Ecclesiasticall causes Bellar. lib. 1. de clericis ca. 19. Dist. 56. cap. cenomanēsē Dist. 56. cap. Osius Ioseph Ang. in 4. sent de sacrament poenit p. 219. Navarr ca. 21. n. 34. in ench Gerso de vita spirituali lect 1. circa mediū part 3. Navar. in enchir cap. 18. n. 61. cap. 25. n. 43. Durand in 4. sent dist 26. q. 3. Sylvest de papa num 10. Sylvest de papa num 14. Bellar.