not borne of his seede for any merit of his but of grace Haimo and because he vouchsafed to be borne of sinners to shew quod non dedignetur peccatores that he disdaineth not sinners Gorrham 14. Quest. How it can be shewed that Christ was borne of the seede and posteritie of Dauid Seeing both Matthew and Luke doe set downe the genealogie of Ioseph the reputed husband of Marie the question is how this concerneth the birth of Christ who onely tooke his flesh of Marie 1. Ambrose giueth a good reason why the genealogie is deriued by the man not by the woman because it is the manner of the Scripture to expresse the generation of men not of women secundum carnem natus vsum debuit sequi carnis he that is borne after the flesh was to follow the vse and custome of flesh which is to count the petigree by the men 2. Then the genealogie of Ioseph thus concerneth Christ because Ioseph beeing a iust man tooke a wife out of his owne tribe Origen also with Ambrose propoundeth this solution yet he insisteth not vpon it but runneth to allegories that Ioseph was not the naturall but spirituall father of Christ But it is euident that the Euangelists doe set downe the naturall generation and descent of Christ. The best solution then is the former that Ioseph maried with Marie beeing of his owne tribe and so they were both of Dauid and therefore they went both vp vnto Bethlem a citie of Dauid to be taxed Luk. 2.4 3. But where it wil be obiected that Elizabeth which was maried to Zacharie a Priest of Levi is called Maries cousin and therefore Marie is not like to haue beene of Iuda it is not sufficient to say with Origen that Elizabeth was Maries cousin not in respect of the tribe but the nation because they were both of Israel for so Elizabeth had beene no more her cousin then any other beside Theophylact in Luk. 1. thinketh that the kinred came in thus because Aaron married Elizabeth the daughter of Aminadab of the tribe of Iuda Exod. 6. and so this Elizabeth was descended of Iuda by her great grandmother Elizabeth But this kinred was too auncient and would haue growne in so many descents out of knowledge whereas it seemeth that Marie and Elizabeth were so of kinred that they were of acquaintance also for Marie went to visit Elizabeth Luk. 2.41 Augustine thinketh it might be thus that some woman of the tribe of Levi was maried into the tribe of Iuda and so Christ was descended not onely of the kingly but the priestly stocke also quaest super Iudic 47. But the best solution is that some rather of the tribe of Iuda was maried into the tribe of Levi for though the other tribes might not one marie within an other to auoide confusion yet the Levites might take their wiues out of any tribe for they had no inheritance and so there was no daunger of any such confusion So Iehoida the high Priest maried Iehosabath the daughter of king Ioram the sister of Ahaziah the king 2. Chron. 22. Pareus Genevens 4. Now as Matthew doth set downe the pettigree of Ioseph the reputed husband of Marie so Luke doth prosequute the genealogie of Marie for Heli whole sonne Ioseph is said to be was the father of Marie and father in law to Ioseph for sonnes and daughters in law in Scripture are called by the names of sonnes and daughters simply as Naomi calleth Ruth her sonnes wife her daughter Beza Pareus But Ambrose hath an other answer that Heli and Iacob were brethren and Iacob dying without children Heli according to the law tooke his wife and raised seede to his brother Ambr. lib. in Luc. 3. of these two the first solution is the best for Matthew saith that Iacob begat Ioseph Heli then begat him not but he was the naturall father of Marie 15. Quest. Whether Christ descended of Dauid by Salomon or Nathan But an other doubt there is about this genealogie for Matthew descendeth by Salomon Luke by Nathan Hereof a question ariseth of which of these Salomon or Nathan Christ came after the flesh 1. Eusebius thinketh that he was descended of Salomon which he would prooue by the 72. Psal. v. 1. Giue thy iudgement to the King and thy righteousnes to the kings sonne where by the king he thinketh Salomon to be vnderstood and by the kings sonne not Rehoboam but Christ which was to come of him Euseb. Demonstr l. 7. c. 7. Origen before approoued the same opinion who giueth this reason thereof because in Matthewes genealogie the word he begate is repeated still and so is it not in S. Lukes catalogue and therefore he thinketh that Christ came of Salomon whome Matthew maketh mention of not of Nathan whose generation S. Luke rehearseth Contr. 1. That Christ was not lineally descended of Salomon it is euident because all Salomons posteritie ended in Iechoniah as is euident Ierem. 22.30 Write this man destitute of children 2. In the place obiected out of the Psalme by the king is vnderstood Dauid by the kings sonne Salomon who was a figure of Christ. 3. Neither in Matthewes genealogie properly is euery one said to beget for Iechonias is said to beget Salathiel who was in deede the sonne of Neri as S. Luke setteth it downe in his genealogie but Iechonias dying without heire appointed Salathiel his next heire 2. Origen Ambrose Beda thinke that Christ came of Nathan both a Priest and Prophet but that can not be for it is certen Christ came of Iuda not of Levi Hebr. 7.14 It is euident that our Lord sprang out of Iudah and therefore Apoc. 7 he is called the lyon of the tribe of Iudah 3. Wherefore our Lord descended of Dauid by Nathan his sonne who is thought to haue beene brother vnto Salomon not onely by his father but by his mother also 1. Chro. 3.5 Damascen lib. 4. c. 15. Pareus 16. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 4 Declared mightily to be the Sonne of God c. 1. The vsuall interpretation is to gather from hence three arguments of Christs diuine nature 1. by the power of miracles 2. by the holy Ghost which he gaue vnto them which beleeued in him and specially in the feast of Pentecost 3. by the raising of himselfe vp from the dead to this purpose Chrysostome Hyperius Aretius with others But the better interpretation is this that here three things are expressed concerning Christ what he was declared to be the Sonne of God mightily or in great power by which nature namely his diuine by the spirit of sanctification wherby he sanctified his own flesh and his mysticall bodie the Church and by what argument namely by his resurrection from the dead wherein he manifestly shewed himselfe by his owne power beeing able to raise vp his owne bodie from the graue Beza Pareus But these three clauses declared mightily to be the Sonne of God according to the spirit of sanctification by
nor the deadnesse of Sarahs wombe 4. Wherefore the Apostle in this place ioyneth both these promises together the one as touching a sonne out of his owne bowels in whom his seede should be multiplyed as the starres of heauen Gen. 15. and the other that he should haue this sonne by Sarah Gen. 17. and although it be not said there that Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse yet because Abraham did not onely beleeue that promise which was made Gen. 15. but other promises also that came afterward the Apostle applyeth the same testimonie vnto other acts of his faith for Abrahams faith as Tolet well saith annot 24. non processit in omnes actus nisi occasione data did not shewe it selfe in euerie act but as occasion was giuen Quest. 35. Whether Abraham doubted of Gods promise It may seeme at the first viewe of that storie Gen. 17. where Moses sheweth how Abraham when the Lord promised him a sonne of Sarah his wife laughed to himselfe and thus said shall a sonne be borne to one that is an hundred yeare old and shall Sarah beare beeing 90. yeare olde and he prayeth in the same place that Ismael might liue in Gods sight for the solution of this doubt there are diuerse opinions 1. Chrysostome hom 6. de poeniten and Hierome lib. 3. cont Pelagian are of opinion that Abraham offended by incredulitie and Chrysostome addeth further that for this his sonne of incredulitic Abrahams posteritie was punished with 400. yeares seruitude But this is contrary to the Apostle here who freeth Abraham from all doubting and vnbeleefe And Chrysostome himselfe returneth this opinion hom 40. in Gen. there shewing that Abraham did not wauer any thing at all in faith 2. Ioannes Arboreus as Pererius citeth him disput 9. thinketh that Abraham at the first doubted of Gods promise but afterward beeing strengthened and confirmed by the Lords words he beleeued and cast away all doubting of the same minde seemeth Basil to haue bene before homil de poeniten Abraham fidelis inventus est tamen iuvenire est vbi haeâ—verit Abraham in the end was faithfull but we may finde where he did somewhat sticke and doubted But the Apostle cleareth Abraham from all doubting and vnbeleefe both first and last Neither did he doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe 3. Caietan in his commentarie here thinketh that Abraham doubted not at all of the truth of God promise but he was vncertaine onely how the Lords speach should be taken whether properly or figuratiuely But it is euident that Abraham vnderstood the Lord to speake properly without any figure or mysticall sense for he saith shall a Sonne be borne to him that is an hundred yeare old 4. Ambrose and Augustine doe free Abraham from all manner of doubting and thinke that his laughter and his question which be mooued was not diffidentis sed de mirantis omnipotentiam Dei of one which doubted but rather admired the omnipotencie of God to this purpose Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham c. 9. Augustine lib. 16. de ciuit Dei c. 26. But it appeareth that Abraham did cast some doubts in his mind when after God had promised him a Sonne by Sarah yet he desired that Ismael might liue in his sight 5. Wherefore we neither with the first impute vnto Abraham any incredulitie who though he laughed as Sarah did afterward yet he vpon an other occasion it was in him a signe of spirituall ioy but in the other of womanly vanitie and lightnesse and therefore she is rebuked of the Angel but Abraham is not reprehended neither yet doe we say that Abraham was at the first incredulous but afterward vpon better reason was swayed not yet doe we ascribe so perfect a faith vnto Abraham as though he had no doubts at all But that he had a conflict at one and the same time in himselfe he did wrestle with his own reason but stayed not there he presently by faith ouercame all difficultie and that interrogation which he made proceeded not of doubting but of a desire to be further instructed how that thing should be so to be confirmed in faith like as the virgin Marie at the time of the annuntiation propounded the like question not of any incredulitie or curiositie but onely of a desire to be further confirmed in her faith like as Gedeon and Hezekiah asked signes of God for their confirmation wherein they were heard and their desire graunted whereas Ahaz was reprooued for his peruersenes because he refused a signe when it was offred of God to this purpose Martyr Calvin for fides non respuit media à Deo instituta licet non est illis penitus addicta faith refuseth not the meanes appointed of God although it be not altogether addicted vnto them Faius so also Gorrhan non fuit quaestio dubitatunis sed admirationis it was not a question of doubting but admiring see more of this question Hexapl. in Gen. c. 17. quest 11. Quest. 36. How Abraham is said to haue giuen glorie vnto God ver 20. This phrase to giue glorie vnto God is taken two wayes in Scripture and vttered of two sorts of men either of the righteous or of the wicked when it is vsed of the righteous it sometime signifieth the acknowledging of his truth and power as Ioh. 3.33 he that receiued his testmonie hath sealed that God is true or it is taken for giuing thankes in acknowledging thankefully the benefits receiued as Luk. 17.18 there is none returned to giue God praise saue this stranger when this phrase is vttered of the wicked it either signifieth an acknowledging of Gods iustice in punishing as 1. Sam. 6.5 the Philistims in sending a present to the God of Israel are said to giue glorie vnto him that is to confesse that it was his hand and none other that was vpon them or els it signifieth to stand in awe of God and to knowe that he is the reuealer of secrets and so to confesse the truth and not to lie in his presence as Iosuah when he vrged Achan to confesse the truth bid him giue glorie vnto God Ios. 7. so they say in the same sense to the blind man Ioh. 9.24 that he should giue glorie vnto God Now in what sense the Apostle saith that Abraham gaue glorie vnto God it is diuersly scanned 1. Chrysostome and Oecumenius thus expound it non curiose agere Deum glorificare est not to deale curiously is to glorifie God as curously to enquire is to dishonour God But this rather is a sequel and effect of giuing glorie to God not to be curious to giue glory goeth before as the cause of the other 2. Gorrhan and gloss interlin taketh it for praising God de fidei suae constantia for the constancie of his faith 3. Haymo de acceptis beneficijs for the benefits receiued 4. Osiander tribuens ei laudem veritatis giuing him the praise of the truth for he that beleeueth not
his delight and ioying in good in his inner man but he is captiued by the lawe of his members vnto sinne v. 22.23 The issue is this first he desireth and expecteth to be deliuered from this spirituall bondage and captiuitie ver 24. secondly he giueth thanks for this freedome in Christ that he is not yet wholly captiued vnto sinne but in his spirit he serueth the lawe of God 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 1. We must here distinguish betweene these two cessare legem the law to cease and dominionem legis cessare the dominion of the law to cease Theodoret thinketh that the Apostle treateth of the ceasing of the law so also Gorrhan but that the law is not ceased the Apostle sheweth afterward giuing an instance in one of the commandements Thou shalt not lust but the dominion of the law is ceased which serued to condemne but we are vnder grace which hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law Tolet. annot 1. 2. By the lawe 1. neither with Sedulius doe we vnderstand the lawe of nature for he speaketh vnto the Iewes that knewe the lawe whereas the lawe of nature was knowne also vnto the Gentiles 2. neither with Ambrose by the lawe doe we meane the Gospel for we are not dead vnto this lawe as the Apostle saith v. 4. we are dead to the law 3. neither is the lawe of the members here vnderstood as Origen which is alwaies euill rebelling against the lawe of the word but the lawe which the Apostle here speaketh of is holy and good ver 12. 4. nor yet doe we vnderstand the ciuill lawe of the Romanes to whom the Apostle doth write as knowing their owne lawes as Haymo and Lyranus indifferently vnderstandeth Lex Mosaica vel Civilis the Mosaicall or Ciuill lawe 5. The Apostle then maketh mention of the morall law of Moses as is euident by that instance which afterward he bringeth in of that commandement Thou shalt not couet Tolet. Mart. Pareus 3. These words while he liveth are diuersly interpreted 1. some referre it to the law as long as the lawe liveth or remaineth so Origen Ambrose Erasmus and Origen addeth this reason because the man is afterward resembled to the lawe who beeing dead the woman is free but this reason sheweth that it must be referred rather to the man then the law 2. and so indeede it is more fitly said of the man while he liueth then of the lawe and in grammaticall construction it is better referred to the nearer word then the further off Beza 3. some doe ioyne it vnto man which word because in the Greeke signifieth both sexes Chrysostome thinketh that the death of both is insinuated for if the woman be free when her husband is dead much more when she is dead also but then this verse should be confounded in sense with that which followeth whereas the Apostle speaketh first in generall of the lawe which onely beareth rule ouer a man while he liueth and then of the particular lawe of matrimonie 4. some thinke that these words while he or it liueth are indifferently referred either to the lawe or man for both we are said to be dead to the lawe v. 4. and the lawe also is said to be dead v. 6. Mart. but it is better ioyned with man as the nearest word 4. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle speaketh not here generally of the law of Moses but of the particular law of matrimonie annot 4. but as is before shewed it is better to vnderstand the Apostle to speake generally here of the law which bindeth a man onely while he liueth and so we are dead in Christ and no longer bound to the law and then he doth illustrate the same by the particular law of marriage the law was as the man or rather sinne that receiued strength by the law we as the wife the law beeing dead in Christ in respect of the bondage thereof we are free Pareus 2. Quest. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead v. 3. If the man be dead she is free Lyranus giueth this note that if the man should chance to die and yet be raised againe as some were the woman were not bound in that case to receiue the man as her husband nisi de condecentia but in decencie onely and supervenienti novo consensu by a new consent and contract Pererius affirmeth the same and giueth instance of Lazarus that if any should rise againe as he did non futuram vxorem eius quae ante fuerat she should not be his wife that was before but vpon a new contract Contra. Though this be but a curious and vnnecessarie question yet because the occasion is ministred by them it shall not be amisse herein to examine the truth Indeede when we shall rise againe to an immortall state as in the generall resurrection neither the man shall be bound to the wife nor the wife to the husband because they shall neither marrie nor be giuen in marriage but when any is miraculously raised againe to the mortall state and condition of this life the case is otherwise as may appeare by these reasons 1. Other coniunctions which are not so neare as betweene the father or mother and the children doe not cease neither are extinct by such a temporall death as it is saide Heb. 11.35 The women receiued their dead raised to life that is the mothers acknowledged their children raised againe as the widow of Sarepta and the Shunamite had their sonnes restored vnto them againe beeing dead the one by the Prophet Elias the other by the Prophet Elisha the question is whether those children so raised were freed from the obedience of their parents I thinke not no more is the wife in that case freed from her husband because the coniunction is nearer betweene the man and wife as Gen. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and mother and cleaue to his wife 2. When the Sadduces put the question to Christ of a woman that was married to seuen brethren whose wife she should be in the resurrection our Sauiour answered them not that the woman was free from them all by death but because that in the resurrection they neither marrie not are married but are as the Angels in heauen Matth. 22.30 So then the reason why they are free after death is not simply because they are dead but because they shall rise to an incorruptible state and not returne from death againe to their former mortall condition 3. Pererius himselfe confesseth that if one that is baptized or hath receiued orders should be raised from death he should not neede to be baptized or consecrated againe because those Sacraments do imprint in the soule an indeleble character so doth not matrimonie But this may serue as an argument against his conceit that matrimonie in this case shall no more be iterated
say that he had lost that day wherein he had not conferred some benefit the Israelites were mooued vnto hospitalitie vpon this reason because they had bin sometime strangers and we in regard of that which may fall out hereafter ought to be stirred vp to this dutie for who can promise any certentie of habitation to himselfe or his posteritie after him Mar. 21. Quest. How our enemies are to be blessed Blesse them that persecute you v. 14. 1. Lyranus maketh this the connexion of this precept with the former that as before he shewed how charitie should be expressed in affectu in the affection v. 10. be affectioned then â—â—fectu in the effect in giuing honour c. and in distributing and such like now he declareth how charitie must appeare and shew it selfe in signo in the externall signes as first in words but I rather approoue Chrysostomes connexion the Apostle hauing prescribed the duties that must be exercised toward our domesticalls now teacheth how we should behaue our selues towards them without for he that first practiseth all duties toward his friends shall be better prepared how to vse his enemies 2. The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benedicite blesse ye which word is taken three waies in Scripture as either God is said to blesse man as he blessed the house of Obed Edom 2. Sam. 6. where the Atke was and then to blesse is aliquid muneris conferre to conferre some gift as Origen noteth God blesseth when he maketh one to prosper and bestoweth some spirituall or temporall gift or man is saide to blesse God that is to praise his name and giue him thanks or one man is said to blesse an other which is either to speake well of him or in wishing well vnto him as Iacob is said to haue blessed Ephraim and Manasses the sonnes of Ioseph that is to haue praied for their prosperitie and so it is taken here Pererius addeth a fourth signification when to blesse by the contrarie signifieth to curse as when Iobs wife â—â—d him blesse God that is curse him but that ironicall vse of the word is impertinent here 3. Further it may be obserued that the Apostle choseth rather to say benedicitie blesse ye then benefacite doe ye well or bene precamini wish well for this last is not sufficient vnlesse we expresse our charitie by some outward signe and the first is not alwaies in our power though we must doe well also to our enemies when we may but to blesse and vse good words at all times may be done Tolet and the Apostle in expressing the same thing by the negatiue blesse and curse not sheweth how hard a thing this is to doe and therefore he doth inculcate it againe and thereby he admonisheth that we should be constant still to blesse although they cease not to persecute vs and not to blesse in part and curse in part Tolet. 4. Neither doth this precept onely admonish vs vt bene loquerentur to speake well of our enemies as Erasmus readeth but in the repetition so much is insinuated that we should not onely abstaine from cursing or euill speaking but wish vnto them well in praying for their conuersation Martyr Beza 5. Bucer denieth that here we are commanded to praise our enemies non iubet vt laudemus c. he biddeth not that the persecutor should be praised but that we should pray for them and admonish them with mild and gentle words but Pet. Martyr here sheweth our enemie may be praised also we must distinguish betweene the euill that is in them and the good gifts of God which they haue which we are not to obscure and extenuate howsoeuer they are euill affected toward vs as Paul did commend in Agrippa his knowledge of the Prophets Act. 26.27 and Aeschines though Demosthenes were his enemie yet commended vnto the Rhodians his eloquence in that bitter oration which Demosthenes made against him This also is true but it is not within the compasse of the Apostles precept here which admonisheth vs both with good words and good desires to qualifie the hatred of our enemies 6. This lesson which Paul teacheth others he practised himselfe 2. Cor. 4.13 we are euill spoken of and yet we blesse and he himselfe had learned it first of his and our Master our blessed Sauiour Matth. 5.34 Blesse them that curse you pray for them that persecute you wherein we see the perfection of Christian precepts beyond the counsell of the wise heathen Vespasianus thus resolued that it was not lawfull to reuile a Senator but if he rayled first then one might reuile him againe for by his rayling he had depriued himselfe of his Senators dignitie Now if it be not lawfull to curse our enemie much lesse should men teuile any others Martyr 7. Here might be noted the opinion of Thomas Aquinas who denieth that this is a precept to pray in particular for our enemies but a counsell onely of perfection and that this bindeth no further as a precept then that we exclude not our enemies generally from our prayers and to helpe them in the extreame case of necessitie but this shall be handled among the Controversies 22. Quest. Of the reasons which should mooue vs to loue our enemies Chrysostome produceth these reasons 1. praemiâ—rum procuratores sunt c. they are procurers of our reward which persecute vs for they are pronounced blessed that suffer for righteousnes 2. mulâ—um erga Christum amorem ostendit c. it sheweth great loue toward Christ when we are content to endure reproches for his name whereas it is a signe of small loue when men are impatient against their persecutors 3. adversaries stupifacies c. thou shalt astonish the enemie when he seeth thy patience and thereby he will know that thou seekest an other life contemning all the troubles of this sic à persecutione abstinebit and so he will abstaine from persecuting of thee 3. sunt materia pulcherrimarum virtutum c. they are the matter and occasion of most goodly vertues for as the Apostle saith tribulation bringeth forth patience Rom. 5.3 4. S. Iames saith c. 1. Let patience haue her perfect worke so that vnlesse we by patience hold out to the end all is nothing our faith is imperfect our hope imperfect whatsoeuer we doe is imperfect Martyr 5. an other reason is because God hath euen among our persecutors aliquos electos some elect which shall at the last be conuerted vnto him Osiander 6. Adde hereunto that we must acknowledge iustâ—m imperium Dei the right and soueraigntie which God hath ouer vs so to dispose that our enemies should persecute vs which made the Prophet Dauid patiently to beare Shemei his reprochfull words it may be saith he that God hath bidde him curse Dauid we should then herein submit our selues to the will of God Gryneus 7. and further conscientia propriae infirmitatis the conscience of our owne infirmitie should moone vs to patience as
be vnordained but the Ecclesiasticall censure of excommunicating kings is onely an humane ordinance not commanded nor warranted by the word Ergo 2. An excommunicate person is in the same degree with an heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 but an heathen Magistrate is to be obeyed for such were the gouernours in S. Pauls time to whom he willeth subiection to be giuen Rom. 13.1 3. Christian religion ouerthroweth not the policie of Commonwealths neither is God the author of confusion but if Princes excommunicate should be disobeyed great disorder and confusion should follow in the commonwealth for the canons forbid palam vel secrete loqui to speake openly or secretly with excommunicate persons part 2. c. 11. qu. 3. c. 1. or to goe vnto the house of one that is excommunicate ib id c. 26. or to receiue any that is excommunicate into their house c. 29. and they are decreed not to be homicides qui contra excommunicatos armantur which take armes against excommunicate persons caus 23. qu. 5. c. 27. and an excommunicate person non audiendus in iudicio must not be heard in iudgement decret Gregor lib. 1. tit 29. c. 21. Now who seeth not what confusion would be brought vpon the commonwealth if the subiects might neither speake and conferre with the king nor resort vnto him and that they might take armes against him standing excommunicate 4. No Ecclesiasticall lawe can dispense and take away the ciuill and naturall lawe as for the sonne to doe his dutie to his father the wife to her husband the seruant to his Master though they stand excommunicate yea the Popish decrees allowe all these to doe their seruice euen vnto excommunicate persons as thus stand the words of the canon anathematis vinculo has subtrahimus videlicet vxores liberos seruos ancellas c. we doe release from the bond of excommunication wiues children seruants maides c. which did attend vpon excommunicate persons part 2. c. 11. qu. 3. c. 103. If these domesticall inferiours may performe their duties to persons excommunicate how much more lawfull is it for subiects to doe the like to their Princes because the necessitie of the state so much the more requireth it 5. The Popes censure of excommunication is vniust and vnlawfull and therefore voide by their owne lawes as part 2. c. 11. quest 3. it is decreed iniustam damnationem irritam that an vniust damnation is of no force c. 1.46 non est petenda solutio vbi inique fertur sententia absolution is not to be craued where the sentence is vniustly laid c. to this purpose is the decree of Gelasius B. of Rome there expressed Now the Popes excommunicating is vnlawfull for diuerse reasons 1. because he is an incompetent iudge he excommunicateth Princes who are not of his iurisdiction and the lawe is cui denegatur executio denegatur sententiae pronuntiatio to whom the execution of the sentence is denied the pronouncing of the sentence is c. Cod. lib. 3. tit 26. leg 3. but the Pope out of his precinct and iurisdiction hath no power to execute his sentence Ergo the denouncing thereof belongeth not vnto him 2. Their owne canons hold that qui inimici sunt iudices esse non possunt they which are enemies can be no iudges Caus. 3. qu. 5. c. 15. but the Pope is a professed enemie to kings whom he excommunicateth 3. They are not held to be excommunicate which are excommunicate by heretikes c. 24. qu. 1. c. 36. but the Pope holdeth many hereticall points of doctrine for proofe hereof see Synops. Papis thoroughout 4. It is not lawfull for any to excommunicate in their owne cause See the decree of Gregor c. 23. qu. 4. c. 27. but this doth the Pope 5. Their law is that no man should be excommunicate antequam causa probetur before the cause be prooued c. 2. qu. 1. c. 11. but how can the causes of Princes he prooued before an incompetent iudge where no man appeareth to answear for them 6. An excommunicate person cannot excommunicate c. 24. qu. 11.4 but the Pope standeth excommunicate himselfe according to that decree of the Toletane councell 12. c. 1. non erat ab anathematis sententia alienus aut à divina animadversionis vltione securus quisquis contra salutem principis deinceps aut crexerit vocem aut commouerit caedem aue quamcunque quaesierit laedendi vltionem he shall not be free from the sentence of excommunication or secure from the reuenge of the diuine animadversion whosoeuer hereafter doth either lift vp his voice against the safetie of the Prince or plotte to murther him or seeke to be reuenged by procuring any hurt vnto him c. the like decree see Toletan 4.74 Toletan 5.4 Toletan 7.1 Now then because it is apparantly known that the Pope practiseth against the safetie and state of Princes not of his faction he standeth excommunicate and so his excommunication is of no value 6. If Kings ought not at all to be excommunicate de iure by the right of their imperiall authoritie then de facto if they chaunce in fact to be excommunicate obedience notwithstanding is to be yeelded vnto them but the first is true as is partly shewed before and further appeareth by the reasons sometime vsed by the Colledge or Church Leodievs against the excommunication of Paschalis the 2. in this manner si quis vetus novum Testamentum gestaque revoluerit c. If any man turne ouer the old and new Testament and the things done therein he shall euidently find quod aut minime aut difficile possunt Reges Imperatores excommunicari that Kings and Emperors either not at all or verie hardly are to be excommunicate they may be admonished rebuked by discrete men because those whom Christ the King of kings hath appointed in his place in earth damnandos salvandos suo iudicio reliquit c. he hath reserued to be condemned or saued to his owne iudgement c. here are two reasons of this assertion the one taken from the authoritie of the old and new Testament wherein no such president is to be found the other from the eminencie of the Princely estate which Christ hath reserued to his owne iudgement An other reason which they vrge is this Paulus pro malis regibus orari vult c. Paul will haue euill Kings prayed for that we may lead a quiet life esset apostolorum imitari Apostolum it were Apostolike to imitate the Apostle c. Kings must then be prayed for and blessed they must not be anathematized and accursed How farre the Ciuill state may proceed in resisting a Tyrant Here Pareus hath this position that the inferior Magistrates beeing subiects may defend themselues the Commonwealth and the Church and the true saith euen by force of armes against a Tyrant so these conditions be obserued 1. When either the Prince degenerateth to a Tyrant and maketh hauock of all offering notorious wrongs against all law