the malicious application of this Minister to make the diuorce before mencioned betweene our Prince and vs to seeme remedilesse For if the doctrine approued and receyued so many ages before this difference of Religion was heard of shall be laid vnto vs now for matter of vndutifulnes with which doctrine notwithstanding our Auncestors liued most peaceably and duetifully for many hundred yeares as good subiectes vnder his Maiesties 〈◊〉 both in England Scotland what fault can this be in vs now or what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it in the Minister to obiect it against vs yea to make a criminall accusation therof in this his calumnious libell against all Catholikes of our Countrey whatsoeuer 10. If we consider their doctrines and positions togeather with their practice and exercise concerning this point of quiet obedience and subiection euen from these later times of Luther Zuinglius and 〈◊〉 beginninges of innouation we shall find an other manner of nouelty to contemplate and another sorte of dangers for Princes to tremble at For if in steed of Rebellious doctrine of the 〈◊〉 Church which is the title of this aduersaries pamphlet wee should set downe the positions and practice of the Geneuian Church and Caluinian sect planted and directed therby we should easely see what were the difference as the whole world both may and doth For that concerning their positions and doctrine that touch this point they are extant in their owne bookes not wronge or drawne by strained inferences as our Ministers Calumniations are against Catholicks in this place but plainely cleerely and Categorically set downe by their owne pen testified and put in print by their owne writers and especially by one in England that is now in highest dignity vnder his Maiesty and another in place of some dignity also by his office who out of their owne bookes cited particulerly by them relate these and other like positions That Princes may be restrained by force pursued iudged and punished by the people excommunicated depriued deposed and cast into hell by the Ministers arraigned condemned and put to death by the inferiour Magistrates whensoeuer in their opinion he becommeth a 〈◊〉 or opposite to the ghospell which in effect falleth out to be so often as these head-strong new brethren shall mislike of his or her gouernement thinke them worthy to be remoued 11. And if to the testimony of our English Protestant writers in this point any be desirous to haue ad ioined the suffrages in like manner of externe authors of the same Religion concerning the same article about the lawfulnes of violent vsage towardes Princes in cases by them prescribed let them read Bezae himselfe in his Apology to the Bishop Claudius de Sainctes in defence and praise of Pultrot that murdered traiterously the famous great Duke of Guise his Maiesties great vncle and supreme Generall of all the French forces as also the discourse of the French famous Minister Suriau otherwise calling himselfe Rosier in his Booke of Reasons why it was lawfull for any of his 〈◊〉 brethren to kill as he saith Charles the ninth King of France and his mother if they would not obey the Caluinian Ghospell as both Launay Belsorest other French writers in their Histories do relate To which effect also was written that notorious and seditious booke intituled 〈◊〉 matin and others by the brethren of the ghospell yea aboue others that most dangerous firebrand by Orsinus Hoto man and the rest of Geneua allowed also by 〈◊〉 intitu led Vindiciaecontra Tyrannos The reuenge vpō Tyrantes conteyning a most shameles publique approbation of all desperate of all villanous attemptes whatsoeuer made or to be made by their brethren against lawfull Princes vnder the name of Tyrantes whensoeuer it might seeme to be done in fauour of their ghospell 12. So as now after all this manifest assertiue doctrine of theirs knowne and confessed in the world and practised by them in so many places for so many yeares in so notorious manner as no man can deny it for this Minister to come peeping forth with certaine poore illations strained inferences against Catholiks for that in certaine cases they acknowledge power to remaine in the head of the Church by way of Canonicall lawes and publique iudgment to restraine exorbitant outragious excesses of Princes when they shall fall out is a ridiculous kind of byting at the heele while the other do strike at the head and so will it also appeare if we obserue the euētes themselues for that heere in this place our Minister for example 〈◊〉 only foure factes or processes of Popes to wit two of Gregories the seauenth and ninth and other two of Pius and Sixtus the fifth who in so many ages haue giuen sentence of depriuation against Princes wheras if we consider but this one age only which hath passed since Luther began and not yet one whole age we shall find many more Princes deposed slaine molested or violated by Protestant people then by all Popes put togeather since the beginning of Pope-dome haue byn troubled or Censured which is a markeable point and not lightly to be passed ouer by prudent Princes for that the reason herof is that the one side proceedeth by lawe publique iudgement and mature deliberation the other by popular mutiny rash and temerarious precipitation And this of doctrine in this place vntill we come to the fourth Chapter where much more is to be added to this effect 13. But if we should come now from doctrine to action and examples of the exercise therof in this behalfe there were no end of the narration and there is no man or woman lightly of any yeares or vnderstanding in publique affaires whose mind and memory is not full of them For who remembreth not what passed in Germany presently almost vpon the beginning of Luthers doctrine at the least not aboue 7. or 8. yeares after to wit from the yeare 〈◊〉 testified aswell by Sleidan and other Protestant Authors as by those that were Catholicke how the new brethrē incited by this new doctrine again 〈◊〉 their Princes both temporall and spirituall tooke armes and entred into tumult and rebellion with such violence and headlong pertinacy throughout al that countrey as in one Prouince only there were aboue two hundred Monasteries and Castels taken razed and spoiled and aboue an hundred and thirty thousand people slaine this was for that beginning which fire once enkindled and the humour of sedition once setled in the heades o that Hereticall faction neuer ceased afterward but continued more or lesse still against 〈◊〉 Emperour Charles the 〈◊〉 vnder diuers deuises and pretences of the 〈◊〉 association and the like vntill more then twenty yeares after to wit vntill the yeare 1546. wherin he was forced to take in hand that great and dangerous warre Luther himselfe 〈◊〉 yet aliue against the Duke of Saxonie Marques of 〈◊〉 and other Protestant Princes whome he subdued therin but not without
Morton not content after the pretended confirmation of his first discouery and reasons therof to haue added a second Treatise conteyning as he saith A Iustification of Protestantes against imputations of disobedience and Rebellion against temporall Princes either in doctrine or practice both which you haue heard now how substātially he hath performed he thought good also to ad a third Treatise though nothing needfull to the argument in hand which he intituleth A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two pointes first concerning the Pope supreame head of Rebellion and secondly the impious conceipt of Equiuocation And forasmuch as of the second point which is Equiuocation we are to treat more largly in the ensuing Chapters and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated againe seuerally in this place the substance therof hauing byn touched sufficiently forasmuch as belongeth to this affaire in the former Chapters especially the second I had purposed once to passe it ouer without any answere at all as indeed not deseruing any it being only a certaine disorderly hudling togeather of peeces and parcelles of other mens collections about that matter better handled by themselues But yet considering afterward the speciall manner of this mans treating the same matters both in regard of fraude and simplicity though contrary the one to the other I iudged it not amisse to giue the Reader some tast therof in this one Chapter wherby he may be able to frame a iudgment of the rest and of the exorbitant veine of this mans writing 2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his first Chapter with these wordes This pretended predominance saith he of the Pope in temporall causes whether directly or indirectly considered in which diuision of gouerning the Romish schoole is at this day extreamly deuided if it be from God it will sure plead Scriptum est c. By which sole entrance yow may take a scantling of the mās discretion for it cannot be denied I thinke except we deny the Ghospell but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by the diuell and not only by God as in like manner it hath byn by all Hereticks the diuels cheif Chaplains since that time and consequently it was no good exordium to build all vpon this foundation 3. Secondly it is not true that the Romish schole is so extreamly deuided in this diuision of gouerning directly or indirectly as the Minister would make it for the question is not at all of gouerning but how the right to gouerne in temporall causes was deliuered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successours whether directly togeather with the spiritual gouernment ouer soules or els indirectly and by a certaine consequence when the said spirituall gouernment is letted and impugned as before hath byn declared In which difference of opinions there is no such extremity of diuision among Catholickes as this man would haue men thinke for that all doe agree in the substance of the thing it self that the Pope hath this authority from God Iure diuino in certaine cases whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controuersy with the Protestantes who deny both the one and the other And so much for that 4. The next sentence or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Romane pretence in these wordes The high Priestes in the old Testament saith he were supreame in ciuill causes ergo they ought to be so also in the new for which he citeth one Carerius a Lawier that wrote of late in Padua De potestate Romani Pontificis defending the former opinion of Canonistes for direct dominion citeth his wordes in Latin thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem And Englisheth the same as before yow haue heard that the high Priest was supreame in ciuill causes which wordes of ciuill causes he putteth in of his owne and if yow marke them doe marre the whole market for that Carerius hath them not either in wordes or sense but teacheth the plaine cōtrary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Preisthood and not of temporall principality which this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men matters then in the new to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself contrary to that which heere he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the wordes of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying whē any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God and at his word aswell Iosue as all the children of Israell and whole multitude shall goe forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordained according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a calfe for the high Priest commonwealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignity and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in ciuill causes as this Minister doth bely him 5. And wheras Carerius had said in two former Answeres first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some cases in the King and secondly that in the new law the spirituall power was more eminent then in the old he commeth thirdly to say that in the old law the High Priest in some respectes was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of ciuill power except the Author will be contrary to himself And therfore that clause was very falsly and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister and this with so much the lesse shame for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the plaine contrary sense saying In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiuum sacerdotium adiectiuum c. That in the old law the Kingdome was the substantiue that stood of it self and Preisthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrary-wise in the new law Preisthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Godes law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the
with his being a King he meant and so he ought to doe as he was man and inferiour to his Father and when he speaketh of the other of his being a King he vnderstandeth it as he was God and equall to his Father and so taking the one in one meaning and the other in the other his principall meaning is to deceaue his Reader with a sophisticall argument instead of a demonstratiue yet doth the good man so confide in his logicall science as in one place he triumpheth ouer his Aduersary that did but once name Logicke in these wordes Dare yow saith he appeale to Logicke this is the art of all artes and the high tribunall of reason and truth it self which no man in any matter whether it be case of humanity or deuinity can iustly refuse which is so ridiculous a simplicity as no man can read without laughter For what high tribunall I pray yow hath logicke in deuinity Or who gaue her this tribunall was there no deuinity before Logicke was inuented by the Philosophers Logicke is not a science according to Aristotle but only modus sciendi a manner or meane how to come to science and it ministreth not matter but forme of argument as armour to the Logitian wherby to impugne falshood and ignorance in euery science euen as the Cutlers shop doth yeeld weapons to souldiers that goe to warre and yet cannot the Cutlers shop be iustly called the high tribunal of all matters belonging to Chieualry and feates of warfare and consequently this was a vaine florish ostentation 10. But now to returne to the principall point we haue seene that this argument is so far from being demonstratiue as it is no argument at all in regard of the Equiuocation and fallacy therin conteyned Let vs then consider the same in respect of the matter substance it self First I say that it conteyneth a manifest fond and impious paradox that Christes Kingdome as he was both King and Priest had the preheminence of his Priesthood and I call it a paradox for that I thinke no Christian man of learning euer held it before and much lesse any sound deuine Secondly I call it fond in respect of his ridiculous reasons alledged for the same which presently we shall examine And thirdly I call it impious for that it is both against the Scriptures and preiudiciall to Christes highest dignity of Priesthood vpon earth Wherby also followeth that this Ministers inference or conclusion Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to be held as conuenient among Christians must be censured by the same censures for that it concludeth a generall preheminence and excellency of Kingly State before Priesthood which is the quite opposite assertion to that which all ancient Fathers and namely S. Chrysostome out of all their common sense doth maintaine in his bookes De Sacerdotio affirming that the office and dignity of a Priest doth so far exceed that of a King as gold doth siluer heauen earth and the soule the body Regno Sacerdotium saith he tanto est excellentius quantum carnis Spiritus interuallum esse potest Priesthood is somuch more excellent then Kingly authority as there can be difference imagined betweene flesh and spirit And in another place the same Father Sacerdotium est principatus ipso etiam Regno venerabilior maior Priesthood is a Princedome more venerable great then is Kingly authority And then againe Ne mihi narras purpuram c. doe not tell me of purple or diademe of scepter or golden apparell of Kinges for these are but shaddowes and more vaine then May-flowers Si vis videre discrimen quantum absit Rex a Sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae c. If yow will see indeed the true difference betweene them and how much the King is inferiour to a 〈◊〉 consider the measure of power geuen to them both yow shall see the Priestes tribunall much higher then that of the King So he Wherunto agreeth that of S. Gregory Nazienzen spoken to the Emperour himself The law of Christ saith he hath made yow subiect to my power and to my tribunall for wee Bishops haue an Empire also and that more excellent and perfect then yours except yow will say the spirit is inferiour to the flesh and heauenly thinges to earthly 11. So he And much more to this effect which yow may read cited out of diuers Fathers in a booke set forth this last yeare in answere to Syr Edward Cookes Reportes by a Catholicke deuine who handleth this point more largely and particularly in the second and fourth Chapters of the said answere And this is sufficient to shew the inference or conclusion of T. M. to be false touching the power and dignity of Priesthood and of Kingly principallity among men Now let vs returne to the consideration therof in Christ himself which is the principall question though in effect it be decided by that which now wee haue shewed for that the dignity and preheminence aboue Kingly dignity of Priesthood in man which the foresaid Fathers doe so resolutly affirme inferreth also the preheminence of Priesthood in Christ for somuch as from that descendeth this other but yet I thinke it not amisse to handle the same somewhat more distinctly the Ministers paradox therin being so prophane and irreligious as hath byn said 12. First then as Christ is acknowledged both by them and vs to haue byn both Priest and King according as he was prefigured in Melchisedech who had both these dignities in himself so the one and the other excellency of Priestly and Kingly preheminence were in him according as he was man and vnder his Father which for so much as appertained to his Priesthood is graunted heere by T. M. and the matter is euident in itself for that Christ as God could not offer Sacrifice nor make intercession to his Father for vs which are the chief offices of Priesthood for that this belōgeth to an inferiour according to that saying of S. Ambrose Sacerdos idem hostia Sacerdotium tamen humanae conditionis officium est Christ was both Priest and Sacrifice yet was his Priesthood the office of humane condition S. Augustine also talking of both dignities saith Secundum hominem Christus Rex Sacerdos effectus est Christ was made both King and Priest according as he was man And the same is plaine by Scripture in which euery where is acknowledged that Christes Kingdome was giuen him by his Father Ego autem constitutus Rex ab eo super Sion montem Sanctum eius saith Christ in the Psalmes I am apointed King by him vpon his holy hill of Sion ergo he was King by gift and appointement of his Father And in the same Psalme God the Father saith vnto him Postula à me dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam possessionem tuam terminos terrae Aske of me and I will
of words yet in substance is it much for that therby T. M. would make his Reader belieue that Bellarmine cleereth Caluin and Beza from all sortes of errour in this point for that purpose turneth illum into illos and hoc errore into errore that is to say him into them and this errour into any errour at all wheras Bellarmine though in one sense he excuse him yet absolutly doth he condemne him as yow haue heard and no man can deny but that his Latin wordes were heere fraudulently and perfidiously alledged and mangled by T. M. for that he could not doe it but wittingly and of purpose and yet forsooth this man will not Equiuocate as he saith for a world though lye he will manifestly for much lesse as yow see And so much of this vntill we come to examine the matter more largely afterward in the third Part of this Chapter 58. And heere I will passe ouer many thinges that might be noted out of the sequent pages mamely 30. 31. 34. where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authors alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare them with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscane Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith that a King when he is made by the people can not be deposed by them againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Catholickes doe hold so long as he conteineth himself within the nature of a King for that otherwise which is the question in cōtrouersy Royard himself saith parendum 〈◊〉 non esse that he is not to be obeyed but this is not to be iudged by the people and their mutiny as Protestant Doctors teach 59. And to like effect he citeth a discourse though most brokenly alledged out of Bishop Cunerus writing against the Rebells of Flanders and testifying that it lieth not in the peoples hand to reiect their Prince at their pleasure as those Protestant subiectes did and then M. Morton as though he had achieued some great victory triumpheth exceedingly saying That forsomuch as Friars in our Councells haue no voice but only Bishops he hath brought forth a Bishop against vs whome for that the moderate Answerer had named a little before this man scornfully telleth him Caesarem appellasti ad Caesarem ibis yow haue appealed to Cunerus and now he shal be your Iudge against yow And is not this great folly and insolency for that Cunerus in all that his booke saith nothing against vs but altogeather for vs to represse the Rebellion in Flanders as hath byn signified And secōdly notwithstanding all this exact obediēce which both he and we prescribe and require at subiectes handes towardes their lawfull Princes he hath a speciall Chapter which is the third after this alledged heere by T. M. wherin he doth expressely largly proue that in some cases when Princes fall into intollerable disorders there is authority left in the common-wealth and Church of Christ to restraine and remoue them What falshood is this then to alledge Authors thus directly against their owne sense meaning and whole drift doth this become a Minister of simple truth Is this for a man that somuch abhorreth Equiuocation 60. I let passe as trifles in this very place but yet such as shew a guilty minde and meaning that he citing the booke of Alexander Carerius a Doctor of the Canon law in Padua which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani 〈◊〉 putteth in of his owne contra huius temporis Haereticos against the Heretickes of this time which are not in the title of that booke and then wheras the said Author naming or citing many other writers to be of his opinion doth say nuperrimè verò Celsus Mancinus in tract de Iuribus Principatuum c. and last of all Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same in a certaine Treatise of the rightes of principalities this man to frame vnto himself some matter of insultation turneth verò into verè and then playeth ridiculously vpon his owne fiction in these wordes Carerius citeth another called Celsus by interpretation high or lofty and therfore insignes him with verè Celsus as truly so named and so truly he may be if we iudge him by the loftines of his stile and conclusion So he And doe yow see this folly Or will yow thinke it rather folly then falshood that could not discerne betweene verò and verè Or not be able to iudge by the contexture of Carerius his speech it selfe that it could not by apt construction be verè if he had lighted vpon a corrupt coppy as he could not for that there is but one and that hath very plainly verò and consequently all this Commentary of Thomas 〈◊〉 is out of his owne inuention And where now is the assurance of his vpright conscience protested to his Maiesty in his Epistle dedicatory where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus where his naked innocency Can this be ignorance can this be done but of purpose and consequently by a guilty conscience what may the hearer belieue of all he saith when euery where he is found intangled with such foolish treachery But let vs proceed 61. There followeth within two leaues after a heape not only of falshoodes but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said that not only Kinges but Popes also for Heresy by the Canon lawes were to be deposed he Answereth thus The Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in case of Heresy doe professe concerning Popes that they cannot possibly be Heretickes as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed Not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or tēporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell Not saith Carerius though he should doe any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall State of the Church Not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the Lawes of Kinges Not saith Gratians glosse though he should carry infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell and these forenamed Authors doe auouch for the confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an hundred yeares So he And in these wordes are as many notorious and shamelesse lies as there are assertions and Authors named by him for the same 62. For first the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the text to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azorius and Gratian doe expressely cleerly and resolutly hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentes that Popes both may fall into Heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipso facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church and their wordes heere guilfully alledged
second and third Reasons §. 2. HIs second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke and Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priestes faith he doe attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall Soueraigne ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleadgeth fower seuerall authorities of Catholicke writers but so corruptly and perfidiously as if nothing else did shew his talent of cogging and treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwardes greater store will occurre we shall runne ouer briefly all these fower 23. First he saith that Doleman in his Conference about succession hath these wordes The Common-wealth hath authority to chuse a King and to limit him lawes at their pleasure Which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet heere is no mention of the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common-wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other states Secondly Dolemans wordes are not of chusing a King but of chusing a forme of gouernement be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himself speake In like manner saith he it is euident that as the Common-wealth hath this authority to chuse and change her gouernement as hath byn proued so hath it also to limit the same with what lawes and conditions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersity of authority and power which ech one of the former gouernments hath in it self So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common-wealth hath that is deuoid of any certeine gouernement to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh them with the limitations they thinke most expedient and so we see in England France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it self different formes and manners of gouernement with different lawes and limitations according to the choice and liking of ech nation This place then of Doleman is corrupted by T. M. both in wordes and sense for he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of giuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 24. There followeth the second place taken out of the French Iesuite as he calleth him De iusta abdicatione c. though it be well knowne that D. Bouchier Author of that booke yet liuing in Flanders and Canon of Tourney was neuer Iesuite in his life but all must be ascribed to Iesuits that may seeme odious This French Iesuite saith he sheweth a reason of Dolemans speach saying For Maiesty is rather seated in the Kingdome then in the King But I would aske the poore man why he doth alleadge this place or of what weight it is or may be for his purpose for so much as D. Bouchier in these wordes denieth not Maiesty to be in the King but to be more in the Kingdome for that the Kingdome giueth Maiesty vnto the King when it chuseth him and not the King properly vnto the Kingdome And is not this a great obiection or doth this proue that we ascribe Democraticall soueraignity ouer Kings vnto the people One of his owne Ghospell-brethren speaketh more roundly and roughly to the matter when he writeth Populo ius est vt imperium cui velit deferat The people hath right to bestowe the crowne vpon whome they list if we had said so what aduantage would T. M. haue sought thereat 25. His third place is out of D. Stapleton in his booke called Dydimus where he saith That the people are not ordeyned for the Prince but the Prince for the people His wordes in Latin are Non populi in Principum gratiam facti sed Principes in populi commodum creati sunt Multitudes of people are not made by God for Princes sakes but Princes are created for the commodity or good of the people and what is there in this sentence iustly to be reprehended Is not this euident by diuine and humane lawe and by the very light of nature it self that Princes were first ordeined by God for the good of multitudes and not multitudes for the vtility of Princes Will T. M. deny this or is not this far more modest and temperate then that of his owne brethren before mentioned whose wordes are Populus Rege est praestantior melior the people are better more excellēt then the King what wilfull wrangling is this in a turbulent Minister 26. His fourth and last place is out of M. VVilliam Reinoldes in his booke De iusta Reip. auctoritate c. whome he abuseth egregiously both in ascribing to him that which is not his and in deliuering the same corruptedly and by a little yow may learne much ex vngue leonem His wordes he citeth thus Rex humana creaturae est quia ab hominibus constituta and Englisheth in this manner A King is but a creature of mans creation where yow see first that in the translation he addeth but and mans creation of himself for that the Latin hath no such but nor creation but constitution Secondly these wordes are not the wordes of M. Reinoldes but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleadged here by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalte and magnify the authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as he is calumniated For proofe herof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it self before mentioned shal find that M. Reinolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God by his commandement to be obeyed His wordes are these Hinc enim est c. hence is it that albeit the Apostle doe call all earthly principality a humaine creature for that it is placed in certaine men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature which God created and from the vse of reason which God powred into man and which is a little beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of almighty God therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that There is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this power resisteth God himselfe So M. Reinoldes 27. And now let the indifferent Reader iudge whether M. Reinoldes hath byn calumniated in this allegation or no whether this Minister is led by any rule of conscience and whether these be such pregnant arguments and proofes against vs as he promised at the first entrance of his booke And for the matter in hand he promised to proue as yow haue heard that we ascribed popular and Democraticall power to the people ouer Kings which how well he hath
there heere any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince or of his succession nay doth not the text speake plainly of making a King where none is doth it not speake also indifferently of all sortes of Religion of what side soeuer the truth be How then can this malicious cauilling Minister expect to be trusted hereafter or how may any man thinke that he speaketh or writeth out of conscience seing him to vse such grosse shiftes and falshoodes in so manifest and important a matter It is no marueyle that he set not his name at large to his booke as not desirous to haue the dew praise of such desert To the rest of his reasons §. 3. BVt let vs passe a little further in these his deuises for much I may not both in regarde of the breuity which I haue designedvnto my self for the loathsomnes I take of such vncharitable railings as in steed of reasons he casteth forth with no greater authority then of his owne assertion or rather calumniation 37. As for example in his fourth reason he subsumeth in his minor proposition thus But all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 dissolue the oath of obedience to all Protestant Gouernours And in the fifth But all Popish Priestes defend violent deposing of Kinges and Emperours And in the sixt But all Popish Priestes are guylty of intending designing or practising murther of Princes And in the seauenth But all Popish Priestes doe iustify the actes of treason and 〈◊〉 parricides And yet further in the eight But all Popish Priestes professe Rebellion as soone as they can presume of their strength In the ninth likewise But all Popish Priestes are guylty of 〈◊〉 for denying or violating with men of diuerse Religion And lastly in histenth But all Romish Priestes ex officio that is to say as they are Priestes must and doe professe such seditious 〈◊〉 as thereby they are desperate traitors 〈◊〉 38. And is it possible for any tongue though borrowed from hell it self and embrewed with neuer so virulent or serpentine prison to vtter more precipitate malice then this His propositions yow see are generall in all these assertions to wit that al Catholicke Priestes are guilty in all these accusations and the nature as yow know of a generall proposition is such as if any one instance may be giuen to the contrary it ouerthroweth the whole And is it probable thinke yow that no one Priest may be found in England or elswhere deuoide of all these heynons accusations or of any one of them Surely I am of opinion that there will hardly be found any man so passionate on his owneside which in this case will not condemne him of passion precipitation and conscienceles calumniation And we on the other side may well vrge to the contrary that no one Priest hath truely hitherto byn conuinced to haue treated or conspired or giuen consent to the Princes death in all the long raigne of the Queene past no not Ballard himself who only can be named to haue byn condemned for this pretence though in deed his crime was as of all the 14. Gentlemen that died with him rather to haue deliuered Queene Mary out of prison then to depriue Q. Elizabeth of her life and so they protested at their deathes 39. But leauing this let vs come to examine some of the pointes themselues that are obiected they are all if yow consider them well but little buddes and branches deduced from one and the selfe same roote of the Popes authority and consequently but minced-meates made out in different seruices by the cunning cookery of T. M. to feede the phantasies of such as hunger after variety of calumniations against the Catholicke doctrine For what great difference is there for example sake betweene that which is treated in the fourth reason of sreeing subiectes from their obedience to Princes the other of the fifth about Deposing Princes or that of the sixt and seauenth of designing their deathes and of iustifying treasons against the same And so in the ninth of oathes euacuated which was handled before vnder other tearmes in the fourth reason wherby appeareth that this mans purpose was as before I haue noted to straine matters to the vttermost and to set out as many shewes of inconueniences dangers and damages to ensue by our doctrine of Papall authority as either his wit could deuise or his malice vtter 40. And yet the seely fellow did not consider one instance vnanswerable that might be giuen to all these his inuentions which is the experience of so many ages both in England other Kingdoms round about vs wherin the Kings and Princes haue raigned prosperously and doe at this day notwithstanding this doctrine and vse of the Popes power this not only Catholicke Princes but diuers Protestant Potentates in like manner for any thing that Popes haue done or attempted against them For what hath any Pope done against the Protestant Kings of Denmarke in this our age what against those of Sweueland either Father or Sonne though the later doth offer open iniury to a Catholicke King the true inheritor what against the Dukes of Saxony the Count Palatines and Protestant Princes of the Empire notwithstanding the said Electors whole authority in that action was giuen them by the Sea Apostolicke and consequently doth depend therof what against diuers other particular Princes both of the Empire and otherwise who haue in this our age departed from the obedience of that Sea how many hath it molested censured deposed or troubled for the same 41. And that which is most of all to our purpose at this time what manner of proceeding hath the same Sea Apostolicke vsed towardes the Kingdome of Scotland and his Maiesty that now ruleth also the scepter of England for the space of 36. yeares wherin he raigned from an infant after the iniust deposition of his mother by her Protestant subiects did the Sea of Rome or any Bishop therof euer goe about to hurt or preiudice him Or is it not well knowne that diuers Popes did endeauour to doe good and friendly actions for the preseruation of his safty when it was many times put in ieopardy by the Protestant party And among other I can well remember that about the yeare 1585. when his Maiesty was besieged by them in his towne and castle of Striueling and driuen to yeeld vnto them both his owne royall person and amongst other articles this as the Protestant History it self doth recount it was one That his Maiesties olde guarde was to be remoued and another placed by them the Pope then liuing hearing therof by his Maiesties Embassador in France the Archbishop of Glasco and others he was so moued with compassion as he offered an honorable contribution towards the preseruation of his Maiesties person in that case and especially for maintenance of a trusty guard about the same the like good will in other lesse occasions haue other Popes shewed in like manner So as all
in this his Reply nor any regard either to his owne or Maisters honour he behauing himself so fraudulently against his owne knowledge and conscience as in this writing he doth And if I proue not this afterward by multiplicity of manifest manifold examples as in part yow haue seene that I haue done before let me be thought to haue done him iniury which willingly I would not doe vnto the worst man liuing in which place I hold not him though by his pen I must needes iudge him to be bad inough 4. Now then to the point it self of his Reply which he calleth as hath byn said A full satisfaction it seemeth to me as full as pipes and hoggesheades are wont to be heere in these countreys at the time of vintage when they are full only of winde and aire and nothing els and so yow shall see afterwardes that this his Reply is full of wordes without substance of florish without truth of fraude without reall dealing for that lightly he scarsely alledgeth any text of his Aduersaries wryting without some fort of sophistication both of wordes and sense or other like knackes And further so distracteth and dismembreth his aduersaries threed of speach citing one branch of it in one part of his Reply another in another one sentence first that should haue byn last and another last that should haue byn first therby to confound the Readers memory one period halfe deuided the other quartered the third left out the fourth disguised so as it is euident that he sought rather to fly to couer shaddow and hide himself then really and substantially to come to the combate as examples ensuing shall make all manifest 5. But heere perhaps some will say that this seemeth a meruaile vnto them for that this man pretendeth to deale more distinctly and exactly then others for that he setteth downe seuerally plainly and cleerly first the wordes of his former pamphlet of Discouery then the text of his aduersary the moderate answerer and thirdly the full satisfaction of his faithfull Reply And furthermore he draweth euery thing to diuisions and subdiuisions distinctions contra-positions which make a iolly florish in the Readers eye being set downe in logicall rancke As for example in his first reason for setting Catholickes and Protestantes at debate he saith he will proue it thus By a threefold euidence from a Popish 1. Definition of an Heretick 2. Explication of a person excommunicate 3. Application of Romish Censures to them both And then the last member againe is proued By Popish 1. Councelles 2. Bulles 3. Doctours 6. And is not this plaine and cleere saith one Yes to entertaine Children by sound of wordes or pleasing pictures But when we come to the substance find that neither he alledgeth his Aduersaries speech sincerely nor answeareth truly to the sense but either dissembleth the same or runneth a side or confirmeth his said aduersaries argument by his feeble answers what importeth this ostentation of bare and ydle sillables 7. But you will say that he seemeth to haue seene and read much of our moderne Catholicke Authors and to alledge them more abundantly in his text and margent then commonly other writers of his coat calling haue hitherto done for euery where almost he quoteth Vasquez Suarez Tolet Bellarmine Cunerus Azor Alsonsus de Castro Sayer Gregorius de Valentia Bannes and others which I graunt that he hath seene and taken a view of them and others if they be notes of his owne gathering but he hath considered of them as Satan had considered of Iob and his actions when God said vnto him Numquid considerasti seruum meum Iob and he signified yea but it was to bely and calumniate him and so hath this fellow considered of our Catholicke authors not only to slaunder them what he may but manifestly to falsify and corrupt them in many places both in wordes meaning and whole drift of their discourses as in part yow haue seene already and shall more largely and particulerly vpon iust occasions afterwardes 8. Nor hath this whole Reply of his though bigge in bulke any substantial point almost handled therin either about the one or the other two partes of his subiect proposed to wit Rebellion and equiuocation wherby he would dissolue all friendly combination and association betweene Catholick and Protestant people for as concerning the first he hath no more in effect but that which before hath byn touched in his ten deuised and distended Reasons That we hold Protestantes for Heretiques excommunicate and subiect to all the penalties of Ecclesiasticall Canons made by the Church against ancient Heretiques That we ascribe power to the Bishop of Rome in certaine cases to censure to excommunicate to depriue Princes wherof is inferred that such and such daungers may ensue which finally is nothing els but may so as the question being De futuris contingentibus of thinges contingent to come wherof the Philosopher saith there is no science all remaineth in vncertainty but only the suspition hatred which he would raise against vs but what the Protestantes doctrine hath done doth at this day against lawfull Princes in their Realmes the armies in the low countreys Hungary Poland Suetia and other places doe testify not only to our ears as things absent but as present also to our eyes then must I inferre that where we haue so many examples of so manifest experience and present action where we see and behold and feele with our senses what passeth and what hath passed and what is like to ensue daily by the notorious vnquiet spirits of new Ghospellers vnder any Prince whatsoeuer that contenteth not their humours What shall we stand wrangling with this Minister or any his like about possibilities or coniecturall probabilities What may fall out in time against his Maiesty for example of Great Britany who hath byn a King a Protestant King almost forty yeares and neuer receaued hurt or disquietnes from any Pope though diuers haue byn in that Sea within the compasse of this time and many other Kinges and Princes both in Denmark Sueueland and Germany for more yeares without molestation receaued or offred frō the said Sea which I dare auouch no Catholicke Prince King or Emperour can say that he hath passed halfe so many years in quiet gouernmēt ouer Protestant people vnto whome their doctrine giueth as great power ouer Princes in that case as we ascribe to Popes and farre greater wherin I remit me to that which hath byn said and demonstrated in the precedent two Chapters 9. And now to end about this first point of our Ministers Reply that wheras in his former libell of ten reasons intituled A discouery of popish doctrine c. He set downe in his first reason for proofe of our insociability with protestantes that we hold them for excommunicate Hereticks subiect to all the penalties belonging to such men wherof one among the rest is that we must
spirituall And thus much concerning this guile by flat falshood Now to a tricke or two of other sortes of shifting by him vsed for deluding the Reader 6. It followeth in the same place as a second Romish pretence That the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ and therfore that in the new the spirituall power as the Popedome saith he must be the chiefe or substantiue c. Which short sentence he patcheth out of two different Authors Salmeron and Carerius part of one part of another and then frameth this graue answere thervnto In this obiection saith he there is more childhood then manhood babish grammer then sound deuinity So he And will you heare his manhood in sound deuinity It followeth imediatly The old Testament indeed saith he in his earthly elementes was a figure of this spirituall and heauenly but of the truly heauenly the day of that eternall sabboth and the Celestiall Hierusalem the Mother-Citty of the Sainctes of God Behold his manhood in sound deuinity Let it be so that the old Testament was in many thinges a figure of the heauenly sabboth and Celestial Hierusalem but what Syr will yow conclude of this by your sound deuinity Was it not a figure also of many thinges vpon earth which should be fulfilled in the new Testament Were not their Cerimonies and Sacrifices a figure of our Sacramentes Sacrifice their Manna of our Eucharist their circumcisions and washinges figures of our Baptisme doth not S. Paul in the ninth and tenth of his first Epistle to the Corinthians set down many examples to this effect As that of Deuteronomy Nō 〈◊〉 os boui trituranti thou shalt not binde vp the month of the oxe that laboureth vnto our preachers of the new Testament as also the passing of the Red-sea by the Israelites their being baptized in the cloude their food of the Manna their drinking out of the rock which 〈◊〉 Christ and diuers other thinges wherof he saith 〈◊〉 autem in figura facta sunt nostri these thinges were done in figure of our present State And againe Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis all these thinges did happen to the Iewes in figure but were to be fulfilled truly and really according to the spirituall meaning in the new Testament Is not all this so were not these thinges to be fulfilled aswell vpon earth as in heauen how thē doth our Minister put that aduersitiue clause but of the truly heauenly as though the old Testament in her earthly Elementes had 〈◊〉 nothing to be fulfilled but only in heauen Is this sound deuinity Is this manhood Nay is it not rather babish childhood that seemeth not to know the very first Elementes of true deuinity 7. I let passe the shamelesse corruption which he vseth in translating the very wordes cited by him out of Salmeron for proofe of his obiection made in our behalfe and I call it shamelesse for that euery child which vnderstandeth Latin may see the Ministers shift therin The Authors words are these as this man heere recounteth them Et hoc Regnum terrenum 〈◊〉 tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana and yet this earthly Kingdome of the Iewes was a shaddow of the spirituall gouernment that was to be in the Christian Church meaning therby that the most excellent spirituall power and gouernment ouer soules which Christ was to institute in his Church at his comming in flesh to wit the power of absoluing from sinnes vpon earth the assistance giuen by the Sacramentes and the like were shaddowed in a certaine manner by the earthly Kingdome among the Iewes And how doth T. M. now translate these wordes frame our obiection out of them The old Testament saith he was a figure of the new in Christ therfore in the new the Popedome is the substātiue c. Heere are two short propositions you see the antecedent and consequent both framed with falshood for that the antecedent set downe out of Salmeron is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words as already we haue shewed though otherwise in it self the propositiō be true nor will I thinke T. M. can deny but that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ. There followeth then the consequent which is no lesse corruptly inferred in our name then was the antecedent affirmed for that we doe not inferre nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second proposition or consequence by him 〈◊〉 that for somuch as the old Testament is a figure of the new therfore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the substantiue c. for that this were a weake inference as euery man seeth nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in the place by him alledged but only vseth that similitude which before yow haue heard of the substantiue and adiectiue so as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himself and other men merry and to giue occasion to play vpon his Aduersary with the reproach of childhood and babish grammer as now he hath done But indeed the true consequence that may be made vpon the Catholicke Authors wordes which hitherto he hath alledged is only this that forasmuch as the Kingdome and gouernment among the Iewes euen in Ecclesiasticall thinges was but earthly and a figure or shaddow in respect of that which was to be ouer soules in the Christian Church it followeth that this in respect of spirituality was to be much more eminent then the other as the thing figured then the figure or shaddow it self And what inconuenience hath this doctrine that it should be called childhood and babish grammer 8. But now shall yow heare a new strange deuise of his neuer heard of I thinke in the world before such a manhood in sound deuinity that sheweth him scarce to be arriued to childhood in true Theology for that to exalt temporall principality of a Kingdome and depresse Priesthood he seeketh to abase the High Priesthood of Christ himself for so he vaunteth that he will returne the foresaid argument vpon the Romish Christ saith he being King and Priest was shaddowed by the types of the old Testament but in Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of Priesthood bycause he is a Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. Secondly as Priest he is suppliant to the Father as King he is predominant ouer all powers and principalities equally with the Father Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to hold as conuenient among Christians An argument demonstratiue So he 9. Wherby yow may see first how good a Logitian he is who auoucheth this for an argument demonstratiue which is indeed a very Elench Sophisme and manifest fallacy for that he changeth his subiect from sense to sense making one proposition of his argument in the one and the other in another sense For when he talketh of Christes Priesthood comparing it
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
doth not this man know that the difference betweene a good and bad gouernment a true King and a Tyrant consisteth in this that the one raigneth for his owne good the other for the good of his subiects What impiety were it to affirme this defect to be in Christes Kingly gouernment and consequētly what folly is it to bring in such reasons But let vs see what he saith further 21. Christ saith he as Priest is suppliant to his Father as King he is predominant ouer all powers and principalities equally with his Father But now wee haue shewed before that there be two partes or functions of Priesthood the one towardes God to be suppliant by sacrifice and intercession the other to be predominant ouer men by spirituall gouernment vpon their soules and that both these doe agree to Christ in respect of his high Priesthood and as he is man and much more the other of his temporall Kingdome so as to make him equall to his Father in this as T. M. doth is an impious absurdity for that vnder his Fathers vniuersall Kingdome Christ himself is also conteined as a subiect according to those wordes of graduation in S. Paul Omnia vestra sunt c. vos autem Christi Christus autem Dei All thinges are yours life death the world thinges past thinges to come and yow are of Christ Christ of God that is to say all thinges for Christ are subiect to yow so you are and ought to be subiect to Christ and Christ to God his Father Now then see how wisely this man frameth his foresaid maine Conclusion that as in Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of his Priesthood which is false as we haue shewed so must it hold also among men that Kingly power be preferred before Priestly temporall before spirituall Of which opinion S. Chrysostome doth thinke that no man but mad or furious can be Equidem saith he neminem existere talem dixerim nisi si quis furiarum aestu percitus sit I cannot thinke any man to be of this opinion to preferre temporall authority before spirituall except a man should become mad with the rage of furies And so to S. Chrysostome I leaue our Minister to be charmed from these kinde of Hereticall furies THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING Three particular kindes of proofes alledged by T. M. against the Popes Supremacy to vvit Of the new and old Testament and from reason it self ALl this that hitherto hath byn treated by our Aduersary hath byn by way as it were of preamble or preface for abasing Priesthood as you haue seene euen in Christ himself therby to subiect the same in Christians to temporall authority but about this point I wish the Reader to looke ouer the forenamed two Chapters of the late Answere to Syr Edward Cooke I meane the second and fourth and I suppose he will remaine satisfied in the preheminency of the one aboue the other Now notwithstanding for the second part of this Chapter we shall bring into a short view the principall pointes hādled by T. M. in this his confutation of the Popes Supremacy And albeit you may easily make a coniecture of what substance it is like to be by that which already you haue seéne discussed yet shall we descend to some principall particulars for that he reduceth in effect all his proofes to three chief heades the first concerning the state of the Sinagogue vnder the Iewes the second of the Christian Church vnder the new Testament the third by reason common to them both From the State of the old Testament §. 1. 23. FOr the first he setteth downe as argumentes of ours for licencing Popes to kill Princes a large list of Kinges and Princes deposed murthered or molested vnder the old Testament as though we did found our doctrine theron for which cause he giueth the title of Romish pretence to the said list alledging therin fourteene seuerall examples as Saul deposed by the Prophet Samuel Roboam by the Prophet Achia the Queene Athalia by the chief Priest Iehoida King Antiochus resisted and driuen out of his Dominion ouer Iury by the Priest Mathathias and the Machabees his children the Priestes of Baal and other Ministers of the King slaine by the Prophets Elias Elizeus the great Captaine Holofernes by Iudith King Eglon by Ahod Sisera by Iabel Queene Iezabel by Iehu at the appointmēt of the Prophet Elizeus with seauenty children of King Achab the death of King Achab who was slaine also miserably himself by Godes appointment the Prophetes prediction King Amon slaine by his owne seruantes for his wickednes to whome we may ad the death of King Agag by the commaundement of Samuel the Prophet the slaughter of King Ioas by his owne seruantes And lastly King Ozias for exercising the Priestes office and function was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingdome 24. And when he had set downe all this ranke of these vnfortunate Princes their deathes and depositions as though we had delighted therin or proposed all that heere is said to be imitated he saith Heere we heare nothing but fighting dispossessing and killing of Kinges those cheifly by Priestes and Prophetes of God in the old Testament propounded to the Prelates of the new to teach them to erect their Miters aboue Crownes Doe yow see the malice of the man If himself hath gathered together this Catalogue of Princes that came to ill endes were slaine or deposed is it maruaile though he heare nothing but that himself liketh to lay forth 25. The difference and comparison of Miters and Crownes is fond and ridiculous and brought in only to make the matter it self odious for the true comparison is only betweene spirituall and temporal authority the one apperteyning to soules the other to bodies the one called heauenly the other earthly the one proper to Priestes the other to ciuill Princes as before yow haue heard declared out of ancient Fathers who notwithstanding were neuer reprehended nor called into enuy for erecting Miters aboue Crownes in that sense as this prophane Calumniator doth heere vrge and exaggerate 26. And as for this whole matter of the examples out of the old Testamēt our principall question being only as before we haue declared VVhether God hath left any lawfull meanes for restrayning euill Princes in certaine cases of extreame danger and whether Priestes also and Prelates in Christian Religion but especially the highest Priest may deale therin These examples are fraudulently heaped and hudled togeather by T. M. as though all were equally stood vpon by Catholicke writers and this to the end that he may giue himself matter to answere afterward as he doth by distinguishing that all doe not proue the self same thing nor were equally lawfull nor done by equall authority or approbation nor appertaine equally to the matter we haue in hād which Catholicke writers also doe say and haue taught him to
say though he dissemble it wherof we may read both Cunerus Carerius Salmeron Barkleius Reginaldus and Boucherus here by him cited out of whome he hath taken the most part of that he writeth in this affaire 27. Wheras then we must confesse with the Philosopher and with reason it self that Quidlibet ex quolibet non est consequens euery thing followeth not of whatsoeuer it seemeth that two pointes only of any moment concerning the controuersy in hand may truly and sincerly be deduced out of this number of examples now alledged the first that as temporall authority of Princes is from God and he will haue it respected and obeyed as from himself so one way or other he faileth not to punish them grieuously and to bring them oftentimes to great affliction and desolation when they gouerne not well and this either by ordinary or extraordinary meanes as himself liketh best To which end is that seuere admonitiō in the second Psalme Et nūc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram seruite Domino in timore exultate ei cum tremore Apprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus pereatis c. And now yow Kinges vnderstand and yow that gouerne the earth be instructed serue almighty God in feare and reioice vnto him with trembling Admit discipline lest he fal into wrath against yow yow perish c. And this is the best most pious meditatiō which a Christian man can draw or lay before Princes out of those disasterous euentes as fell to diuers by Godes owne apointment or permission vnder the old Testament and not the comparison of Myters and Crownes which this Minister ridiculously bringeth in 28. Secondly may be noted that in the execution of Godes iustice designement in this behalfe he vsed also oftentimes the help concurrence of both Priestes and Prophetes other holy men who notwithstanding may be presumed out of their said holy disposition to haue abhorred such effusion of bloud war and other calamities which by fulfilling Godes ordinance made vnto them either by secret inspiration or open commandment were to ensue and follow and consequently that all Priestes were not debarred from dealing in such affairs when God required their cooperation therin 29. All the question then is how and when and where and by whome and for what causes and in what cases with what circumstances this restraint of Princes may be vsed wherin I haue shewed aboundantly before that the moderation prescribed by Catholickes is far greater without comparison then is that of the Protestantes whether we respect either their doctrine or practice of which both kindes we haue before produced sufficient examples and in this place the Authors most alledged by T. M. about this controuersy against violence towardes Princes are Catholicke as namely Cunerus a learned Bishop of the low Countreys in his booke De Officio Principis Christiani and Barkleius a Reader of Law in Loraine in six bookes written by him De Regno Regali potestate aduersus Monarchomacos Of Kingdome and Kingly power against impugners of Princes the first writing against the Rebellions and violent attemptes of the subiectes of Holland and Zeland and other Prouinces therunto annexed and by that occasion treating in generall how vnlawfull a thing it is for subiectes to take that course vpon any discontentment whatsoeuer handleth the matter very learnedly though briefly 30. But the other Doctour Barkley taking vpon him to treat the same matter much more largely directeth his pen principally against the bookes of certaine Protestantes of our time as Hottoman Brute Buchanan and others before mentioned for so he saith in his preface Non contentus Satanas tis qui parens ille malorum mendaciorum Lutherus c. Satan being not contēted with those wicked doctrines which Luther the Father of all wickednes and lies and other slanderous Railers that came out of his kytchin had with infamous mouthes and intolerable audacity vomited out against Princes he sent forth also into the world to fly before mens eyes other most seditious bookes Hottomani FrancoGalliam Bruti vindicias Tyrannorum Bucchanani Dialogum de iure Regni the booke of Hottoman dwelling in Geneua intituled Free-France or the Freedome of France to wit of the Protestantes against their Kinges and Princes that other also of Brutus a man of the same place and crew intituled The reuenge that subiectes ought to take of their Princes if they become Tyrantes the third of Buchanan schoole-maister in times past to our Kinges Maiesty intituled A Dialogue of the right of Kingly power subiecting the same to the people yea and to euery priuate person therof when it shall seeme vnto him necessary for the common-wealth or expedient for Godes glory as before yow haue heard Against all which this Doctour Barkley a Catholicke man writeth his six bookes so as in this point for Princes security we are far more forward then Protestantes 31. And albeit this said Doctour doth include in like manner Doctour Boucher a French Catholicke writer reprehending diuers thinges vttered by the said Boucher in his booke De iusta abdicatione against the late King Henry the third of France yet in the principall point whether priuate men either for priuate or publicke causes may vse violence against their lawful Prince not lawfully denounced for a publique enemy by the whole state and common-wealth in this point I say the said Boucher is absolutly against the same so protesteth and proueth it by diuers argumentes shewing himself therin to be quite contrary and to abhorre not only the doctrine of VVickcliffe and Husse condemned in the Councell of Constance about that matter but also of the forsaid Protestant writers Hottoman Brute Bucchanan Knox Goodman Gilby VVhittingham and the like among whome also I may include Iohn Fox who in his history of Iohn Husse alloweth that proposition of his Prelates and Princes leese their authority when they fall into mortall sinne as the Author of the VVarn-word proueth more largely out of Fox himself 32. And thus much for the first point about examples drawne from the times of the old Testament out of which little cā be vrged to the proofe or disproofe of this question besides the two generall pointes by vs noted before For to bring into disputation whether Priesthood or Kingly principality had the vpper hand in that law is to small purpose the matter being cleere that as the Kinges and so likewise their Captaines Iudges and Gouernours before they had Kinges had the preheminence in all temporall affaires so in spirituall and such as concerned God imediatly the were referred principally to Priestes and the temporall Magistrate commaunded to heare them to take the law of them consequently also the interpretation therof to repaire vnto them in consultation of doubtes and to stand to their iudgment and definition that Priestes and Prophetes should consult immediatly
with God and the Prince follow their word and direction 33. And albeit God did some-times vse for externall guiding and direction of Priestes and Priestly affaires the authority of good Kinges in those daies especially when they were Prophetes also as Dauid Salomon in the correcting and remouing of some Priestes yet this was extraordinary and proueth not that simply and absolutly Kingly dignity and authority was aboue Priesthood in that law albeit also it be most true which the Authors by this man heere alledged Salmeron Cunerus Carerius and the rest doe note that the Priesthood of the old Testament was nothing comparable to that of the new this descending directly from the person and office of Christ himself and indued with farre higher and more powerfull spirituall authority for guiding of soules then had the Priestes of the old law which was but a figure of the new therfore to argue from that to this is a plaine fallacy and abusing of the Reader 34. Wherfore leauing this of the comparison betweene Kinges and Priestes of the old and new Testament I will end this first point with the very same conclusion concerning the safty of Princes from violence of their subiectes which our Aduersary himself alledgeth out of our Catholicke Author Cunerus in these wordes VVe are taught saith he from the example of the people of God as your Cunerus teacheth with great patience to endure the tyranny of mortall Kinges yea when wee haue power to resist and because they be next vnder God in earth in all their iniuries to commend their reuenge vnto God nay he teacheth Kinges another excellent rule of pollicy fitting for the preseruation of all States which is that he who succeedeth a King violently murdered of any though of Godly zeale yet ought he to reueng his Predecessours death by the death of the malefactours So T.M. And now followeth that of the Ghospell Ex ore tuo te indico serue 〈◊〉 for first I would aske him is not this Catholicke doctrine Is it not ours doth he not heere call the Author therof Cunerus ours how then doth he affirme euery where that our doctrine teacheth killing of Princes Let him shew vs any of his Authors that euer of this argument hath written so moderatly 35. And yet further I must aske him whether he will stand to the iudgment of this our Cunerus when he commeth to the point indeed How incorrigible Princes in some cases may lawfully be restrained as also depriued by the Common-wealth and consent of the supreame Pastour will he stand to this I say or rather fleet back againe to the doctrine of the Scottish Geneuian French Flemish Ministers when the King should mislike him and especially for his Religion wherof I make little doubt what euer he saith heere finding himself and his at good ease And finally I would aske him seriously whether he would haue his Maiesty of England to practice that excellent rule of pollicy which he so highly comendeth out of our 〈◊〉 who notwithstanding saith not a word therof by way of rule or obseruation but only affirmeth that Amasias did iustly put to death those seruantes of King Ioas that vpon zeale had slaine him in his bed I would aske him I say whether indeed he would wish his Maiesty of England to put the same rule and so highly commended pollicy in vse against such as violently murdered abetted or procured the same against not only his Predecessours but parentes and immediate Progenitours Father Mother and Grand-mother And then we know how many Ministers and their friendes would enter into that daunce but these men frame their tongues according to times fit occasiōs And with this he endeth his proofes out of the old Testament Out of the new Testament §. 2. 36. ANd then comming to the second part he beginneth his discourse with this title The former question disputed according to the state of the new Testament and presently in our manner he giueth the onset with this proposition The Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporall ouer all Kinges and Kingdomes of the world c. And for proofe therof citeth Carerius and Bozius in the margent and beginneth to lay forth their proofes and then against these two that hold the opinion of Canonistes wherof before we haue treated to wit that Christ was the immediate Lord of all temporalties and consequently also is his substitute he opposeth Franciscus de Victoria Bellarmine Sanders and others that hold the other opinion to wit that the Pope hath not directly but indirectly only such authority to deale with Princes in temporall affaires and so not informing his Reader that these are different opinions of the manner how the Pope hath this authority but yet that both do agree in the thing it self that he hath it he playeth pleasantly vpon the matter and would make men thinke that he taketh vs at great aduantage as contrary or rather contradictory among our selues which indeed is no more cōtradiction then if two Lawiers agreeing that such a noble man had such an office or authority ouer such a Lordship by succession from the Crowne should differ only in this whether the said office were giuen by the Prince seuerally and expressely by particuler gift and writinges or were giuen by a certaine consequence included in the gift of the said Lordship The differēce were nothing in the thing or certainty of authority but in the manner of hauing it and so is it heere and yet out of this difference of these two opiniōs doth our Minister furnish himself with good probability of argmentes on the one side as though they were his owne who otherwise would appeare very poore pittiful therin And this tricke he plaied before with the moderate Answerer when he serued himself of the two differēt opinions of some Deuines and Canonistes about the question VVhether Hereticks before personall denuntiation and sentence giuen be subiect to externall penalties appointed by the Canons And generally he runneth to this shift more then any other commonly of his fellow-writers which I haue seene in these our dayes to wit that whersoeuer he findeth any difference of opinions in disputable matters betweene our Catholicke writers which S. Augustine saith may stand with integrity of faith there he setteth downe any one of these opinions for ours and argueth against it with the argumentes of the other or bringeth in the others authority wordes against the same which maketh some shew or muster of matter on his side wheras in deed and substance he hath nothing at all 37. It were ouer long to examine in this place all the obiections which he putteth downe on our behalfe vnder the second head of our proofes concerning the time of the new Testament calling them Romish pretences and the fond resolutions he giueth vnto them as first that we doe found the Popes temporall sword vpon the keyes giuen by
next ensuing whose title is Quid in Tyrannide subdit is agendum sit What subiectes ought to doe in case of tyranny he sheweth two sortes of Tyranny and Tyrantes the one that inuadeth vniustly another mans dominions against the will authority of his King and Prince the other that leauing the office of a King and good Prince in protecting his people and Religion iustice among them turneth himselfe wholy to their affliction and oppression and that in the former case the people are taught by many examples of Scriptures to resist by armes where they can but in the second much more moderation is to be vsed all meanes of humble suite intreaty intercession prayer to God amendment of life and pacification to be vsed Quod si haec non iuuent saith he Superiorem in tempor alibus vti Reges Princeps non agnoscit tunc supremus Ecclesiae Pastor interpellandus occurrit qui bonis aequis subditorum querelis audit is plura Deo cooperante ratione auctoritate praestare poterit quà m vnquam 〈◊〉 armis impetrabit but if these meanes doe not help saith Cunerus and that the Prince doe acknowledge no Superiour in temporall causes as Kinges doe not then is the Supreme Pastor of the Church to be called vpon who hauing heard the iust good complaintes of the Subiects God assisting him shall be able to effectuate more by reason and authority with their Prince then euer the people themselues should haue obteyned by force of armes Thus he 48. And now will T. M. allow this also for deuinely spoken If he doe then we differ not in opinion If he doe not why doth he so often and continually cull out and cut of sentences of Authors that write directly against him as this Bishop Cunerus the Lawier Carerius the Deuine Bozius the Iesuites Bellarmine Salmeron Azor and others And yet I must admonish the Reader heere againe that if he compare the text it selfe of Cunerus with that which heere T. M. setteth downe in Latin and then the Latin with that he Englisheth he shall find such mangling vpon mangling by cutting of leauing out altering whole sentēces as he will see that this man can scarce deale truly in any thing And thus much for his first answere out of Cunerus making much more against him then for him as yow haue seene 49. And I leaue to discusse the Authority of S. Augustine which out of Cunerus he also alleadgeth for otherwise then out of our Authors bookes he hath little or nothing in any matter it being no lesse mangled by this man then is the text of Cunerus it selfe as euery one will finde that shall read Cunerus not so much as one note of c. being left any where lightly to signify that somewhat is cut of but all running togeather as if it were continuall speach in the Author whereas in deed they be but peeces scraps ioyned togeather and those also commonly with much corruption wherof I dare auouch that the Author shall finde aboue a hundred examples in this fraudulent Reply which is wholy patched vp out of the distracted sentences of our owne Authors by this art 50. But now to his second answere to the former obiection that Gods prouidence must needes haue lef't some remedy for the danger that may occurre by euill gouernment of Princes c. The second is saith he the consideration of examples of the primitiue Church when for the space of three hundred yeares it was in grieuous persecution there was found no power on earth to restraine that earthly power was therfore God wanting to his Church God forbid Nay rather he was not wanting for it is written Vertue is perfected in infirmity And againe As gold is purged in the fire so by affliction c. Because when the outward man suffereth the inward man is renewed and when I am weake then am I strong So he And doe yow see how patient and meeke this man is become now when there is nothing to suffer did his Protestant-Authors before mencioned write or teach this doctrine whē they were pressed by their Catholicke Princes to be quiet Or if this should be preached now at this day in Holland Zeland Frizeland Hungary Polonia Zweueland Transiluania where actually Protestantes are in armes against their naturall and lawfull Princes would it be receaued as currant and Euangelicall Would the examples of primitiue martyrs when there was scarce any temporall common-wealth extant among Christians be sufficient to prescribe a forme of patience sufferance to these men Why doe they not then put it in practice And why cease they not according to this mans doctrine from so notorious tumultuations against their lawfull Princes Why is not this doctrine of the Scripture of perfecting their vertue by bearing and suffering admitted by them I confesse it ought to be soe with all particuler men in their afflictions oppressions and tribulations and so teach our Doctors as before yow haue heard though when the hurt and danger concerneth a common wealth established in Christian Religion there be other considerations to be had as before hath byn set downe 51. But Protestantes obserue neither the one nor the other but both in particuler and common breake forth when they are streyned or discontēted into the vttermost violence they can and their Doctores are ready presently to defend them yea and to goe to the feild with them if need be against their Princes as experience hath taught vs both in Zwitzerland Scotland France and other places Wherfore this pretended preaching of patience and sufferance of T. M. in this place both in his outward and inward man is to small purpose 52. Wherfore his third answere is to the former obiection The view as he saith of our Popish principles wherby we teach that the Pope may not be iudged by any person vpon earth whether secular or Ecclesiasticall nor by a General Councel though he should doe something contrary to the vniuersall State of the Church neglect the Canons spare offenderes oppresse innocentes and the like For which he citeth both Bellarmine Carerius and Azor and then addeth that the Pope cannot be deposed for any of these no not though saith he to vse the wordes of your Pope himselfe one placed in the calendes of your martyrs he should carry many people with himselfe to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so Thus he 53. Whervnto I answere first that all which Bellarmine Carerius Azorius and other Catholicke writers doe affirme of the Popes preheminency of authority immediatly vnder Christ so as he hath no Superiour Iudge betweene Christ and him that may sit in iudgment ouer him or giue sentence vpon him for matters of yll life tendeth only to shew that as he receiueth his supreame charge immediatly from Christ so by him must he be iudged not by man though
in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before yow haue heard Though he should carry many people with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so But in the Latin neither heere nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why doe yow so And therfore I may aske T. M. why doe yow ly so Or why doe yow delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why doe yow translate in English for the abusing of your Reader that which neither your selfe doe set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon it selfe by yow cited hath it at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraude Wherin when yow shall answere me directly and sincerly it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold yow for a deceauer 59. His fourth answere to the former argument of Gods prouidence is the difference he saith of Kings and Popes in this point for that the Papall power saith he which will be thought spirituall if it be euill may be the bane of soules the power of Princes is but corporall therfore feare them not because they can goe no further then the body Thus he And did euer man heare so wise a reason And cannot euill Kinges and Princes be the cause of corrupting soules also if they should liue wickedly permit or induce others to doe the same And what if they should be of an euill Religion as yow will say Q. Mary and K. Henry were and all Kinges vpward for many hundred yeares togeather who by Statutes and lawes forced men to follow the Religiō of that time did all this touch nothing the soule who would say it but T. M But he goeth forward in his application for that bodily Tyranny saith he worketh in the Godly patience but the spirituall Tyranny doth captiuate the inward soule This now is as good as the former and is a difference without diuersity so farre as concerneth our affaire that a man may with patience if he will resist both the one and the other And euen now we haue seene that when any Pope shal decline from the common receaued faith of Christendome he cannot captiuate other men but is deposed himselfe Wherfore this mans conclusion is very simple saying Therfore heere is need according to Gods prouidence of power to depose so desperate a spirituall euill wherof it is written if the salte want his saltenesse it is good for nothing but to be cast vpon the donghill Marke then that concerning the spirituall that God hath ordeined eiiciatur foras let it be cast out but concerning the temporall resiste not the power 60. Lo heere and doe not these men find Scriptures for all purposes This fellow hath found a text that all spirituall power when it misliketh them must be cast to the donghill and no temporall must be resisted and yet he that shall read the first place by him alleadged out of S. Matthew shall find that the lacke of saltenesse is expresly meant of the want of good life and edification especially in Priestes and Preachers and yet is it no precept as this man would haue it to cast them al to the donghill but that salte leesing his taste is fit for nothing but to that vse S. Paul in like manner to the Romanes doth not more forbid resisting of temporall authority then of spirituall but commaundeth to obey both the one and the other which this man applieth only to temporall which he would haue exalted obeyed and respected and the other contemned and cast to the donghill Oh that he had byn worthy to haue byn the scholler of S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen or S. Ambrose before cited who so highly preferred spirituall authority before temporall how would they haue rated him if he would not haue byn better instructed or more piously affected No doubt eiecissent foras they would haue cast him forth to the donghill in deed and there haue left him and so doe we in this matter not meaning to follow him any further except he reasoned more groundedly or dealt more sincerly 61. Yet in one word to answere his comparison we say that both temporall spirituall Magistrates may doe hurte both to body and soule for as the temporall may preiudice also the soule as now hath byn said so may the spirituall afflict in like manner the body as when the Pope or Bishoppes doe burne Heretikes so as in this respect this distinction of T. M. is to no purpose yet doe we also say that when spirituall authority is abused it is more pernicious preiudiciall then the other Quia corruptio optimi est pessima The best thinges become worst when they are peruerted and spirituall diseases especially belonging to faith be more pernicious then corporall for which cause God had so much care to prouide for the preuention therof in his Christian Church for the conseruation of true faith by the authority vnion visibility succession of the said Church and diligence of Doctores Teachers Synodes Councels and other meanes therin vsed and by his assistance of infallibility to the head therof which head though in respect of his eminent authority he haue no Superiours to Iudge or chastise him except in case of heresy as hath byn said yet hath he many and effectuall meanes wherby to be admonished informed stirred vp and moued so as he being but one in the world and furnished with these helpes bringeth farre lesse danger and inconuenience then if all temporall Princes who are many had the like priuiledge and immunity And this euery reasonable man out of reason it selfe will easily see consider 62. As also this other point of no small or meane importance to wit that English Protestantes pretending temporall Princes to be supreame and without Iudge or Superiour in matters of Religion as well as ciuill and secular they incurre a farre greater inconuenience therby then they would seeme to lay vpon vs. For that if any temporall Prince as Supreame in both causes would take vpon him the approbation or admission of any sect or heresy whatsoeuer they haue no remedy at all according to the principles of their doctrine wheras we say the Pope in this case may and must be deposed by force of his subiectes all Christian Princes ioined togeather against him so as in place of one generall Pope which in this case is vnder authority they make so many particuler Popes as are particuler Kings temporall Princes throughout all Christendome that are absolute and consequently without all remedy for offences temporall or spirituall in manners or faith 63. And now let vs imagine what variety of sectes and schismes would haue byn at this day in Christianity if for
is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writteÌ„ of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opinioÌ„ in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutioÌ„ of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idâ—irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
c. by his letters patentes with the counsell and consent of the Bishops and Counsellours of his nation did giue to the 〈◊〉 of Abindon in Barkshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certayne portiō of his land to wit fifteene Mansians in a place called by the country-men Culnam with all profittes and commodityes great and small appertayning thervnto for euerlasting inheritance And that the foresaid Ruchinus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitantes of that place shall not be depressed for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bishop or his officers but that in all euentes of thinges and controuersyes of causes they shall be subiect to the decree of the Abbot of the said Monastery so as c. And then doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. and vouched by Stanford as at large appeareth which Charter graunted aboue 850. yeares sithence was after confirmed per Eduinum Britaniae Anglorum Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955. by which appeareth that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops Senators of his Kingdome which were assembled in Parlament did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the Iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction within his said Abbey which Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being deriued from the Crowne continued vntill the dissolution of the said Abbey in the raigne of King Henry the eight So he 85. And by this yow may see what an important conclusion he doth inferre of the Kinges supreme iurisdiction in spirituall affayres at that time Whervnto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not falsity or belye his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. of his his booke that he had cyted truly the very wordes and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgmentes and actes of Parlament all publicke and in print without any inference argument or amplification quoting particularly the bookes yeares leaues Chapters and other such like certayne references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them c. The answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to his credit and honour in this behalfe granting all as it lay answered the same as yow may see in his booke but now vpon better search it falleth out that this whole 〈◊〉 was falsely alledged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall controuersy in hand about the Kinges spiritual Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charter did ascribe expresly to the Pope his Authority the Attorney suppressing the true wordes relateth it as proceeding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very wordes of my learned friends letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law-bookes themselues and then let any man say how farre M Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholickes 86. As concerning saith he the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon yow must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other points For the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humphrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high 〈◊〉 and tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London from thence brought vnto the Kings-bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said Sanctuary of Culnam and prayed his Counsell to plead that poynt which by all the Iudges of both benches was graunted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 87. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quod Kenulphus Rex Merciorum per litteras suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon ac cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui a ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus ad 〈◊〉 pertinentibus tam in magnis quà m in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quod praedictus Ruchinus ab omni Regis obstaculo Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut ministrorum suorum Episcopiue aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijcerentur 〈◊〉 quod c. And heere ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as yow see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo c. that the monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these wordes vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprimantur that the inhabitants be not opprest with any yoke of any King or his ministers wherby is euident that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall royall power but especially the fraude is seen by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decyde the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quod Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et quod Eduinus tunc Britaniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus concessit quod praefatum Monasterium omnis terrenae seruitutis esset liberum quae 〈◊〉 praedecessoribus suis Catholicis videlicet à dicto Sancto Leone Papa dicto Rege Kenulpho c. Et quod virtute litter arum bullarum praedictarum tempore confectionis earundem eadem villa de Culnam fuit Sanctuarium locus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said Humphrey Stafford by his Counsell alledged furthet for himselfe that Pope Leo had graunted vnto the said Abbot the said immunityes and priuiledges that K. Edwin then King monarch ouer all the English in Britany had graunted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholike predecessors to wit the said holy Pope 〈◊〉 the said King Kenulphus was graunted and that at the tyme of the making of the foresaid letters patentes and Bulles the said village or towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary and priuiledged place by vertue of the said patents and Bulles 88. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sāctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsell in law euen as it is recorded in the reportes of the yeares of King Henry the seauenth as
they are printed by Pinson the law-printer in the tyme of King Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the tytle of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly sett downe the same case with mencyoning of the Bulles of Pope 〈◊〉 for the said immunities and priuiledges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Queene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and 〈◊〉 wert haue committed a notable tricke of falsificatiō in leauing out altogeathcr these markable wordes That Leo then Pope did graunt the said immunityes and priuiledges and also those wordes of King Edwyn which of his Catholike 〈◊〉 S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted c. And againe By force of the letters and Bulles aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 89. And hereby allois euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlament as M. Attorney doth misreport it neyther was there any Parlament held at that tyme in the land or many hundred yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheds Cronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlament in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did graunt vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within the said Abbey neyther had that Abbot any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction deriued from the Crowne But as it appeareth by the authenticke reporte of the Case the Pope and the King did both ioyne in making the said Sanctuary according vnto their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemption from Episcopall Iurisdiction did proceed duely from the graunt of Pope Leo as likewise the exemption from all regall and temporall Iurisdiction proceed from the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude and toucheth not any spirituall immunities or iurisdiction at all 90. Thus farre my friend out of England And by this now yow may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes and textes of the lawes without any inference argumēt or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisement from England with like obseruation of many other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fidelity I thought good to produce this one amongst many being the first in order for a taste in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second Edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholicke Deuyne where euery thing may be referred to his due place And with this will I end both this Chapter and the whole Booke THE CONCLVSION OF THE VVHOLE VVORKE VVith a briefe exhortation vnto Catholickes not to use the liberty of Equiuocation euen in lawfull cases but where some urgent occasion induceth them therunto CHAP. XIII AND now gentle reader hauing brought this Treatise to an end and iustified as I hope our Catholicke doctrine in the eyes and Iudgments of all indifferent men from the two odious imputations of Rebellion and Equiuocation iniuriouslie cast vpon the same by the malice of Thomas Morton there remayneth nothing but that I conclude this our small labour with an exhortation to all Catholicke people not only to abstayne from the first which is vtterly vnlawfull I meane the attempting of any thing contrary to their loyall dutyes in subiection be their pressures neuer so great but also from the practice and frequent vse of the second though in some cases most lawfull as abundantly hath byn 〈◊〉 except some vrgent occasion or obligation either of defence of innocency secresy right iustice or the auoyding of open wrong do force them to the contrary For as the holy Apostle in two seuerall places affirmeth to the Corinthians in cases not much vnlike to this about matter of scandall Omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt All thinges are lawfull vnto me touching meates and other such thinges but all are not expedient to be practised And againe Omnia 〈◊〉 licent sed non omnia edificant All things are lawfull vnto me but all things do not edifye So I say in this case that albeit a man may without breach of truth or offence of almighty God in certayne cases equiuocate or vse a doubtfull speach for a good and necessary end either in oath or out of oath though the hearer doe not alwayes vnderstand it or be deceyued therwith and that many holy men haue done the same yea Christ himselfe that is the example and paterne of all holinesse and truth in speach as by many examples before at large hath byn declared yet considering the tymes and condition therof wherin Catholicks at this day liue in England the offence and scandall which Protestants and some others that vnderstand not the lawfulnes therof or will not vnderstand the same do receyue or raise thervpon my wish and counsell to Catholickes should be to vse the benefit of this liberty most sparingly euen in lawfull thinges and neuer but vpon great and vrgent 〈◊〉 and occasions 2. And the reasons of this my wish and counsell are principally the two already touched The one the auoyding of scandall euen with the Aduersary himself and that as Catholicke Religion is the only true in doctrine so the practice also therof in conuersation should not only be in all truth and sincerity re ipsa in very deed but in opinion likewise and estimation of others in so much as the word of a Catholicke man ought to weigh more then the oath of an other and the oath or promise of a Catholicke more then any band or obligation of an other which for the most parte I doubt not but is so already taken in England For that albeit by this doctrine before declared about Equiuocation men do know that Catholickes in certayne cases may vse the same yet know they also that the said cases are straitly limited with many exceptions and that in common conuersation as in buying selling traffique and the like Equiuocation may not be vsed to the 〈◊〉 or preiudice of any man and that in Iudgments and tribunals where most vse therof doth fall out all lawyers Iudges and Magistrates do know in Catholicke Countryes wherin the 〈◊〉 may vse Equiuocation wherin not and consequently truth Iustice can suffer no wrōg therby And moreouer they know as before hath byn said that the obligation of a Catholicke man is so great to auoyde all kynd of lyes whether veniall or mortall as for the gayning of a world no one is wittingly and willingly to be committed which accōpt I doubt whether men of other sectes and Religion do make or noe So as though already I perswade my self that