preuented in like occasions to wit that multitudes are not to be put in despaire no nor particuler men into extreame exasperation without hope of remedy for that despaire is the mother of precipitation extreme exasperation is the next dore to fury No counsaile no reason no regard of Religion nor other respect humaine or deuine holdeth place when men grow desperate all stringes of hope are cut of We see by experience that the least and weakest wormes of the earth which cannot abide the looke of a man yet when they are extremely pressed and put in despaire of escape they turne and leape in mans face it selfe which otherwise they so 〈◊〉 feare and dread 4. Wherfore seing this dangerous stickler would put this extreme despaire into so many thousandes of his Maiesties subiectes yow 〈◊〉 imagine what good seruice he meaneth to do him therby and what pay he deserueth for his labour Surely if a great rich man whose wealth lay in his flocke of sheepe had neuer so faire and fawning a dog following neuer so diligently his trencher and playing neuer so many flattering trickes before him yet if togeather with this he had that other currish quality also as to woory his maisters sheepe disseuer his fold disperse his flock and driue them into flight and precipitation it is like that his Maister out of his wisedome though otherwise he were delighted with his officious fawning would rather hange such a dog then aduenture to suffer so great and important losses by him And no Iesse is to be expected of the great equity prudence of our great Monarch when he shall well consider of the cause and consequence therof 5. And thus much of the malice and pernicious sequele of this assertion let vs see somewhat now also of the folly falsity therof To which effect I would first enquire if it be so that subiectes of different Religions are not comportable togeather vnder a Prince that is of one of those Religions for so must the question be proposed if we will handle it in generall then how doe the Iewes Christians liue togeather vnder many Christian Princes in Germany and Italy vnder the state of Venice yea vnder the Pope himselfe how doe Christians and Turkes liue togeather vnder the Turkish Emperour of Constantinople as also vnder the Persian without persecution for their Religion how did Catholickes and Arrians liue so many yeares togeather vnder Arrian Kinges and Emperours in old times both in Spaine and els 〈◊〉 how doe Catholickes and Protestantes liue togeather at this day vnder the most Christian King of France vnder the great King of Polonia and vnder the German Emperour in diuers partes of his dominions all Catholicke Princes and in the free-cityes of the Empyre And in particuler is to be considered that the Hussites haue liued now some hundreds of yeares in Bohemia vnder the Cathòlicke Princes and Emperours Lordes of that Countrey with such freedome of conuersation with Catholicke subiectes and vnion of obedience to the said Princes as at this day in the great Citty of Praga where the Emperour commonly resideth and where Catholicks 〈◊〉 wholy gouerne there is not so much as one 〈◊〉 Church knowne to be in the handes of any Catholicke Pastor of that citty but all are Hussites that haue the ordinary charges of soules and Catholickes for seruice sermons and Sacraments doe repaire only to monasteries according to ancient agreementes and conuentions betweene them though in number the said Catholickes be many times more then the other and haue all the gouernment and Commaundry in their handes as hath byn said These are demonstratiue proofes ad hominem and cannot be denied and consequently doe conuince that this make-bate Ministers proposition is false in generall That subiects of different religion may not liue togeather in 〈◊〉 peace if their gouernours will permit them Now if he can alleadge any seuerall weighty causes why this generall assertion holdeth not or may not holde in the particuler case of English Catholiks and Protestants vnder our present King we shall discusse them also and see how much they weigh 6. He pretendeth ten seuerall reasons in his pamphlet for causes of this incompossibility and therof doth his whole inuectiue consist Eight of them appertaine to doctrine and practice of rebellion in vs as he auoucheth and the other two vnto doubtfull speech or Equiuocation Of which later point hauing touched somewhat in the precedent Preface being to haue occasion to doe the same againe more largely afterward wee shall now consider principally of the former concerning doctrine and practice of quiet or vnquiet peaceable or dangerous humours behauiours of subiects both Catholicke Protestant 7. And as for Catholickes the Minister in all his eight reasons bringeth out nothing of nouelty against vs but only such pointes of doctrine as himselfe doth consesse and expresly proue that they were held and recevued in our publique schooles aboue foure hundred yeares gone as namely in his first reason For that we hold Protestants for hereticks so farre forth as they decline and differ obstinately from the receyued doctrine and sense of the Roman Catholicke Church and consequently that being Hereticks they are not true Christians nor can haue true faith in any one article of Christian beliefe and that the punishment determined by the ancient Canon lawes which are many and grieuous both spirituall temporall do or may therby light vpon them And in his second third and fourth reasons that wee teach That the Bishop of Rome as spirituall head of the vniuersall Church hath power aboue temporall Princes and may procure to let the Election and succession of such as are opposite or enemies to Catholicke Religion and that in some cases he may dissolue oathes of obediēce and the like 8. And further yet in his fifth sixt seauenth and eight reasons that in certaine occasions and vpon certaine necessities for preuenting of greater euils imminent to any Countrey Kingdome or common wealth especially if they be spirituall and appertaine to the saluation of soules the same high Pastour may restraine resist or punish the enormous excesses of temporall Princes if any such fall out by Censures excommunication depriuation or deposition though this not but vpon true iust and vrgent causes when other means cannot preuaile for auoiding those euerlasting euils 9. All which doctrines for this is the summe of all he saith or alleadgeth do cōteine as yow see no new matter of malice against Protestant Princes inuented by vs for that the Minister himselfe as now we haue said confesseth that for these three or foure later hundred yeares these positions haue byn generally receiued by all the vniuersall Church and face of Christendome so as being established so many hundred yeares before Protestants were borne or named in the world they could not be made or inuented against them in particuler but only are drawne vnto them at this time by
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
Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a paire of keyes which seemeth to him a fine iest then commeth he out with this vanut Neither can any shew me one Doctour but of reasonable antiquity peto vel ex millibus vnum who by keyes vnderstand ciuill power But Syr what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf will not your owne moderne Protestant Doctors graunt that when the keyes of any Citty Towne or Fort are giuē to a Prince ciuill power ouer that Fort is meant therby who will deny this 38. And secondly whereas he alleadgeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keyes giuen to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and reteyning sinnes ergo no way temporall is a fond illation for that albeit Victoria saith that those keyes did principally importe spirituall authority yet they include also supreme temporall indirectly when the defence of the spirituall doth require it Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place Our eight proposition is saith he that the Pope by authority of the foresaid keyes hath most ample temporall power ouer all Princes and Kinges and the Emperour himself in order to a spirituall end which he proueth there by many arguments And this of the first iest about swordes to be made of keyes 39. The second iest also is as wise and witty as this former that when we found the same temporall sword or authority of S. Peter and his successours vpon the words of Christ Feed my sheep he doth inferre that Princes also must be fed and dietted corporally at the Popes discretion and other such toyes he not vnderstanding as it seemeth or rather dissembling the force of Catholicke argumentes drawne from those and other like Scriptures both by later Doctors and ancient Fathers which this fellow turneth into scofs and contempt or wicked railing for that presently he falleth into these rages O arrogant Glossers O impudent Glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations Forsooth for that in some Popes Bulles though corruptly fraudulently alledged some mention is made of the great authority that was giuen to Elias Elizeus Ieremy and other Prophetes and especially to Christ himself vpon earth to plant destroy pull vp or punish where need should be and that this authority by allusion vnto the same wordes of Scripture is applied to Christes Successour vpon earth affirmed to be left in the Christian Church to be vsed when need shall require and is this so great an impiety thinke yow 40. But he goeth on and saith That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papall power from the Apostles time downward and then produceth this assertion of ours The Priestes saith the Romish pretence of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authority then that of the old law ouer Kinges to depose them whervnto he adioyneth presently his owne spruse Ministeriall answere in these wordes This is not probable except yow can shew some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles or their Holy Successours in the purer periods of times And is not this answered as from a man of his coat Marke the phrase Of footings in purer periods I will for footinges in this matter referre him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures Doctours Fathers Councelles and Ecclesiasticall Histories the Authors by him heere often alledged Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders Salmeron and others doe aboundantly and substancially alledge when he shall haue ouerthrowne or supplanted those footinges of theirs which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning of Christian Religion vnto our dayes and generall practice therof then may the poore man get to haue some little footing for himself and his cause which hitherto he hath none at all as to any man whosoeuer with any indifferency of iudgment shall read ouer and examine his booke will euidently appear yea though he compare but only that which himself alledgeth heere both in the text and margent which seldome agree in true sense if you marke it well But if yow would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margent with the originalles of the Authors themselues you shall scarce euer finde them sincerly to agree but that one fraud or other is vsed in their allegation by chopping changing infarcing leauing out and other such sleightes and deceiptes which though the breuity of this Treatise permit me not to examin and lay forth at large in this place yet some we haue touched before and some others shall we haue occasion to note afterwardes and the Reader himself may vpon this warning make some little triall 41. And as for the succession of times which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring downe from the Apostles dayes not to ours but for a thousand yeares only after Christ wherin he saith that no Pope can be shewed euer to haue had any temporall iurisdiction ouer any Emperour King or temporall Prince though Catholickes doe hold the later six hundred yeares also to be of no lesse force for president of examples in the Church of God then the former thousand yet are the instances so many and euident which may be alledged against his former prescription of the said thousand yeares as doe manifestly cōuince him of folly in that assertion wherin I referre me to the collections and demonstrations therof by the foresaid Authors Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders and others in the places heere quoted in the margent but especially to the three that are not Iesuites to the first for all to wit Carerius that in diuers thinges wrote against the Iesuits whoe in his second booke alleadgeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for prouing his purpose I remit me also to the many learned writinges set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians by Penia Baronius Bouius Eugenius Nardus others shewing the most euident right which the Pope had and hath to commaund them as high Pastor of the Church to recall certaine ciuill lawes made by them in preiudice of the said Church and Ecclesiasticall State which Commandement we doubt not but God will moue that most excellent Cōmon-wealth finally to obey they being knowne to be so good and sound Catholickes as they are though for some time in regard of some temporall respectes they haue deferred to doe the same 42. Many more pointes might be examined in this descēt of his throughout periodes of times but it would be ouerlong and my intention is to giue a tast only or short view for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of diuers ages for proofe of his pretence were time wholy lost For that in effect they say nothing else but that we graunt which is that temporall Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiasticall men also but in temporall affaires And as for his examples of
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
a heauenly Kingdome insomuch as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done amōg them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine thinges that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 5. Heere then are sundry important corruptions fraudes vttered by T.M. the one that the Iesuites and namely Salmeron are inforced to allow the temporall King to haue byn Supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law wheras he doth expressely affirme and prooue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest then the Prince many other testimonies as that he must take the law interpretation therof at the Priestes hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis goe in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word and direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimony of Philo and Ioseph two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the self same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsification concerning the Authours meaning and principall drift 6. The second corruption is in the wordes as they ly in the Latin copy as they are by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If any such thing had fallen out as was obiected to wit that Kinges sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should doe in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. it had byn no maruaile for somuch as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly and imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpon a supposition which suppositiō this Minister that he might the more cunningly shift of and auoid left cut of purpose the most essentiall wordes therof Vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make thinges more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudeorum dicebatur terrenum potius quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly Kingdome wheras contrary-wise the Ecclesiasticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those wordes I say this man cutteth of againe many lines that followed togeather with S. Augustines iudgmēt before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but 〈◊〉 againe presently as though it had imediatly followed 〈◊〉 cùm populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Godes people doth consist of body and minde the carnall or bodily part did cheifly preuaile among the Iewes and heerwith endeth as though nothing more had ensued of that matter thrustnig out these wordes that immediatly followed and made the thing cleere which are Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebaiur and that kinde of earthly power was appointed to signify the spirituall that was to be in the new Testament wherby is euidently seene that Salmeron vnderstood not by carnalis pars and regnum terrenum the temporall Kingdome of Iury as this Minister doth insinuate to make the matter odious but the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Synagogue vnder the old law in respect of the Ecclesiasticall power in the new wherof the other was but an earthly figure or signification 7. But now the third corruption most egregious of all is in his English translation out of the Latin wordes of Salmeron for thus he translateth them in our name In the Synagogue of the Iewes saith Salmeron was a State rather earthly then heauenly so that in that people which was as in the body of a man consisting of body and soule the carnall part was more eminent meaning the temporall to haue byn supreame In which translation are many seuerall shifts and fraudes For wheras Salmeron saith Synagoga Iudeorum dicebatur potius terrenum quà m caeleste regnum the Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly Kingdome he translateth it the Synagogue of the Iewes was a State rather earthly then heauenly and this to the end he might apply the word of earth to the temporal Prince and heauenly to the Iudaicall Priestes which is quite from Salmerons meaning Secondly those other wordes of Salmeron being Cùm populus Dei constet ex corpore animo wheras the people of God doe consist of body and minde meaning therby aswell Christians as Iewes and that the Iewes are as the bodily or carnall part of the man and the Christians the spirituall and consequently their Ecclesiasticall authority earthly and ours heauenly this fellow to deceaue his Reader putteth out first the word Dei the people of God and then translateth it in that people to wit the Iewes the carnall part was the more eminent meaning saith he the tēporall which is false for he speaketh expressely of the Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes which he calleth carnall and terrene in respect of the spirituall Ecclesiasticall among the Christians and not the temporall or Kingly power vnder the old Testament as this man to make vs odious to temporall Princes as debasing their authority would haue it thought And Salmerons cōtraposition or antithesis is not betweene the temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernment among the Iewes but betweene their Ecclesiasticall gouernment and ours that of the Synagogue and this of the Christian Church wherof the one he saith to be terrene earthly the other spirituall and heauenly the one infirme the other powerfull ouer soules c. So as all these sortes and kindes of corruptions being seene in this one little authority yow may imagine what will be found in the whole booke if a man had so much patience and time to leese as to discusse the same exactly through 8. A little after this againe he bringeth in an example of the King of Israell Ozias who for presuming to exercise the Priests office in offering of incense being first reprehended and resistest for the same by Azarias the high Priest and fourescore other Priestes with him in the Temple was for his presumption presently and publickly in all their sightes punished by God and stroken with a leprosy and therupon remoued by the authority of the said high Priest first from the Temple and common conuersation of men and then also from the gouernment or administration of his Kingdome the same being committed to his sonne Ioathan all the dayes of his Fathers life about which example M. Morton first of all bringeth in Doctor
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
consequently that he may assigne a Church to the Arrians Wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose trouble not your selfe O Emperour nor thinke that yow haue Imperiall right ouer those thinges that are diuine doe not exalt your selfe but if yow wil raigne long be subiect to God for it is written that those thinges that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Cesar only those thinges that belōg to Cesar Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour but Churches to the Priest the right of defending publicke walles is committed to yow but not of sacred thinges Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholy to pretermit and cut of as not making for his purpose and so had he done more wisely if he had left out also the other authority of Pope Leo which he reciteth in the eight place of authorities out of ancient Fathers in these wordes 18. The eighth Father saith he is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholicke Emperour saying Yow may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto yow not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church as if he said not only in cases temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English oath And surther neither doe our Kinges of England chalenge nor subiectes condescend vnto In which wordes yow see two thinges are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kinges of England chaleng nor doe the subiectes condescend vnto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperour of his time Wherfore it behooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which heere he saith our controuersy about the Supremacy is at an end 19. First then about the former point let vs consider how many waies T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himself putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam Yow ought ô Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto yow for gouernment of the world or worldly affaires but especially for defence of the Church and then doe ensue immediatly these other wordes also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Minister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious attemptes both defend those thinges that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slaine and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian Heretickes lately condemned in the said Councell all thinges are in most violent garboiles which require your imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle heere cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est saith he quibus pietas vestra succurrere quibus obuiare ne Alexandrina Ecclesia c. Is it not euident whome your Imperiall piety ought to assist and succour and whome yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the house of praier become not a den of theeues Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacramentes is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificij oblatio defecit chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceassed and all diuine misteries of our Religion haue withdrawne themselues from those parricidiall handes of those Heretickes that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayer 21. This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the helpe and secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent Heretiks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouernmēt of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administratiō of them 22. And heere now he sheweth himself intangled not only about the assertion of Imperiall power in spirituall matters by that S. Leo saith it is giuen ad praesidium Ecclesiae to the defence of the Church which proueth nothing at all for him but against him rather as yow see and much more in the explication therof to wit what is meant by this authority how farre it strecheth it self wherin truly I neuer found Protestant yet that could cleerly set downe the same so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours and giue it that limites which his fellowes would agree vnto or themselues make probable 23. About which matter M. Morton heere as yow see who seemeth no small man amongest them and his booke must be presumed to haue come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop at least saith as yow haue heard that it is no more but such as S. Leo allowed in the Emperour ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church and Church matters and men and for punishing Heretickes that troubled the same And further more T. M. expoundeth the matter saying That this Imperiall Kingly authority in spirituall causes reacheth no further but as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them And doe not we graunt also the same Or doe not we teach that temporall Princes power ought principally as S. Leo saith to extend it self to the defence ad preseruation
About which point first all the foresaid Schoole-Deuine lawyers and others do agree with one consent that euery such partie is bound vnder paine of mortall sinne to answere directly truly and plainly according to the mind and intention of the demaunder and not to his owne and to confesse the truth without art euasion Equiuocation or other shift or declination when soeuer the demaunder is his lawfull Iudge in that matter and proceedeth lawfully that is to say according to forme of lawe and equitie therin And if the said accused or defendant either by wilfull holding his peace or by denying the truth or by deluding the Iudge do refuge to do this he sinneth greuously therin Neither may his ghostly Father absolue him in confession from this or any other sinnes vntill he yeeld to performe his dutie in this behalfe though it should be to the euident perill and losse of his life by confessing the Cryme And this do the foresaid Authors S. Thomas and others proue cleerly first out of the Scriptures as where it is said Eccles. 4. Pro anima tua ne confundaris dicere verum be not ashamed to speake the truth though thy life lye theron which is to be vnderstood when a lawfull Iudge or Superiour doth lawfully demaund it and Iosue also Cap. 7. when by Gods direction he 〈◊〉 Achan the sonne of Charmi about the thinges he had 〈◊〉 vsed this phrase Dagloriam Deo confitere giue the glory to God confesse the truth wherby is inferred that he taketh Gods glory from him and sinneth grieuously that refuseth to consesse the truth to a lawfull Magistrate proceeding lawfully against him for that the Magistrate is in the place of Almighty God and he that resisteth him in his lawfull of fice resisteth Gods power and ordination incurreth damnation therby as S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 auoucheth And for so much as the inquiring out and punishing of malefactors is one of the chiefe and principall partes of the Magistrates office for conseruation of the Common wealth both temporall and spirituall to resiste deceaue delude or contemne the Iudge or Magistrates authority in this so principall a point therof must needs be a great and grieuous mortall sinne except as some Doctors do note the smalnes or lightnes of the matter obiected should be such as might mitigate the greiuousnes of the same And this is the seuerity of Catholicke Doctrine for answering directly obediently and truly to lawfull Iudges proceeding lawfully 11. But now when the Iudge is not lawfull or not cōpetent at least in that cause or proceedeth not lawfully then all these foresaid obligations do cease in the defendant As for example if in France Spayne or Italy a great man that is no Iudge nor hath authority from the Prince Prelate or common wealth should take vpon him to examine any party of crymes without commission or other power or being a lay Iudge should examine priests of Ecclesiasticall matters who both by diuine and humane law according to Catholicke Doctrine are exempted from lay mens iurisdiction as largely hath byn proued of late in an Answere against Sir Edward Cookes fifth Part of Reportes which I would wish the Reader to pervse or if his iurisdiction were sufficient in that matter yet if that he proceeded not iuridicè lawfully or according to forme of law in that cause indiciis vel infamiâ vel semi-plenâ saltem probatione non praecedentibus that is to say that neither signes or tokens or common fame or some one substantiall witnesse at least be extant against him which circumstances of lawfull proceeding are handled by lawyers in that case when this I say or any of this falleth out then hold the former Doctors that all the forsaid obligations of true answering vnto him do no more bynde for that he is no more a Iudge in that cause but rather an enemy for that he proceedeth contrarie to iustice and forme of law by which he should iudge and consequently that in this case the defendant may either deny to answere or appeale from him if it may auaile him or except against the forme of proceeding or deny all that is proposed in the forme as it is proposed or vse any other lawfull declination saith S. Thomas but yet so as he do not lye or vtter any falsitie Potest vel per appellationem saith he vel aliter licitè subterfugere mendacium tamen dicere non licet He may either by appellation or otherwise lawfully seeke some euasion but yet so as he vtter no lye 12. And hitherto now in this point all the former Authors do agree without discrepancy that the defendant being thus vninstly pressed may vse all lawfull meanes to auoyd the iniury offered him and Dominicus Sotus that is the most scrupulous in this matter saith Possunt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacunque vti amphibologia quam vsitatus sermo citra mendacium ferre possit they that are so required to answere against lawe may and ought to vse whatsoeuer amphibologie or equiuocation the vsuall speach of men doth or may beare without a lye 13. And thus farre also doth concurre Genesius Sepulueda whome Thomas Morton hath chosen out for some helpe in this matter who though in some particuler pointes he dissent from the rest as presently shall be shewed yet in this he agreeth For thus he writeth 〈◊〉 Theologi ac Iurisperiti consentiunt neque reum in sua nec testem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa de occulto crimine rogatum teneri vt veritatem confiteatur aut testificetur 〈◊〉 si dederit quidem 〈◊〉 andum se vera responsurum Both Deuines and lawyers do generally agree in this point that neither the defendant in his owne cause nor a witnes in another mans being examined of a secret cryme is bound to confesse or testifye the truth no though they haue taken an oath first to vtter the truth So he of the Generall eōsent of all Deuines and lawyers adding his owne opinion more particuler in the same Chapter and telling vs first when the Iudge demaundeth vniustly to wit when he demaundeth of secrets or matters not belonging to his iurisdiction as before hath byn said In which Case he writeth thus Itaque vrgente Iudice iniustè vt neget aut confiteatur sine culpa 〈◊〉 potest 〈◊〉 Iudicem appellare 〈◊〉 alia quacunque ratione modò sit honesta defugere nulla adhibita fraude nullo dolo qui vim obtineat mendacij When a Iudge doth vniustly vrge the defendant to deny or confesse he may without any fault either appeale to a Superiour Iudge if it be permitted or by any other honest meanes declyne the force and violence that is offred vnto him so it be done without any such fraud or guyle as may include the nature of alye so as in this all do agree first that for no cause a lye may be admitted or committed secondly that any manner of euasion either
performed by these places alleadged yow haue seene 28. Finally to stand no longer vpon this whether we or they Catholicks or Protestantes doe attribute more to popular licence against Princes when they giue not contentment may aboundantly be seene in that we haue set downe before and will ensue afterward both of their doctrine and practises in like occasions And so much of this first charge now will we passe to the second 29. The second is that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and souer aignty ouer Kings vnto the Pope wherin first what he saith of ciuill souer aignty is a meere fiction and calumniation of his owne if it be out of the Popes owne temporall Dominions For we ascribe no such vnto him ouer other Princes or their subiects but that authority or soueraignty only which Catholicke doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles spirituall head of the vniuersall visible Church of Christ which is only spirituall for spirituall ends to wit for the direction and saluation of soules And if at any time he be forced to passe further then this and by a certeine consequence to deale in some temporall affaires also it must be only indirectly in defence or conseruation of the said spirituall that is to say when the said spirituall power apperteining to soules cannot other wise be defended or conserued as more largely hath byn treated before 30. This then is the summe and substance of Catholicke doctrine about this point of the Popes authority which from the beginning of Christianity hath byn acknowledged in Gods Church and in no place more then in England where it hath byn both held practised from the very first Christened King of our nation Ethelbert vnto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand yeares without interruption as largely and aboundantly hath byn shewed and laied forth to the view of all men in a late booke written in answere to S. Edward Cookes fifth part of Reportes and this with great honor prosperity of the Princes therof and vnion of their people vnder their gouernment and without such odious or turbulent inferences as now are made therevpon by vnquiet spirittes that would set at warre euen mens imaginations in the ayer therby to mainteine disunion discorde and diffidence betweene Princes and namely betweene our present noble Soueraigne and his Catholicke subiects 31. And first of all let vs heare this turbulent T. M. how vpon the enuy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons VVe demaunde saith he how farre these pretended powers of people Pope may extende and heervpon we argue To which I answere that in imagination they may extend so farre as any fantasticall braine shall list to draw them but in the true meaning of Catholicke reall doctrine they can extend no further then hath byn declared And as for the popular power of people ouer Princes we haue now refuted the calumniation shewed that it is a mere fiction of his owne and no position of ours and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult then the Catholicke without comparison and for that of the Pope I haue declared how it is to be vnderstood to be of his owne nature in spirituall affaires only without preiudice of ciuill Princely gouernement at all and so the practice of the worlde and experience of so many Princes great States and Monarches liuing quietly securely vnder the same authority both in former times and ours most euidently doth proue and confirme 32. But yet let vs see and consider how falsely and calumniously this Make-bate doth herevpon argue in his third reason inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus But all Popish Priestes vpon this pretended Supremacy and prerogatiue of Pope and people doe vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo. Wherin to shew him a notable liar it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes that haue had title of successiō in our coūtrey for therof he speaketh principally since the name of Protestant hath byn heard of in the world being three in number to wit K. Edward the sixt Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames that now raigneth all which were admitted peaceably to their Crownes as well by Priestes as Catholicke people who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not meanes to haue wrought disturbances as the world knoweth so as if one instance only doth truly ouerthrow any general proposition how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied ouerthrow and cast to the ground this vniuersal false assertion of T. M. which auerreth That all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 vtterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes Will he not be ashamed to see himself cōuinced ofso great and shameles ouerlashing 33. And on the other side one only Catholicke Princesse being to succeed in this time to wit Q. Mary we know what resistance the Protestants made both by bookes sermons Treatises and open armes and how many Rebellions conspiracies robberies priuy slaughters and other impediments were designed and practised afterward during the few yeares she raigned we know also what was executed against the gouernment and liues of the two noble Catholicke Queenes her neerest neighbours one of them most straitly conioyned in bloud that raigned at that time in Scotland to omit others before mētioned that were debarred from their lawfull succession or excluded from their rightfull possession for their Religion in Sweueland Flanders other places as cannot be denied 34. Wherfore it is more then extraordinary impudency in T. M. to charge vs with that which is either peculier or more eminent in themselues and false in vs and what or how farre this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these wordes F. Persons in his Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable 〈◊〉 And is it so in deed Syr 〈◊〉 and will yow stand to it and leese your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleadged then if yow please let vs heare the Authors owne wordes 35. And now saith he to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter we haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whome he iudgeth or belieueth to be faulty in Religion and consequently would aduance no Religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sinne against his owne conscience in furthering such aKing And is
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
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
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