M. Hardinge.
VVhere you saie, The Emperoure alone celebrated, kepte, or helde Councelles, for so is your Latine, ‡ 1.1 it is too impudently faced, without any face, without proufe, without Truthe. Thei were Celebra∣ted, or holden* 1.2 by the popes Legates, the Patriarkes, and Bishoppes, and not by Emperours. Al be it, Emperours might 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them,‡ 1.3 but not as Iudges. And thei haue euer benne called Episcopalia Concilia, not* 1.4 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cratoria, Councelles of Bishoppes, not of Emperours. And diuerse Councels, not accompted General 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kepte by Bishoppes before any Emperour was Christened. As those, whiche were kepte by S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hierusalem,* 1.5 mentioned in the Actes of the Aposties: in the time of victor the Pope, in Palestina and other places, concerning the kepinge of Easier: At Rome about the time of Pope Fabian, against the Nouatian Heresie: At Antioche, againste Paulus Samosatenus, and many others. Al whiche 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were kepte, not onely without the presence of the Emperoures person, but ‡ 1.6 also without his Power, or Authoritie. And yet, if he were head of the Churche, it coulde not haue benne donne without him.
If you saie, He was not then Christened, I answeare, that Christianitie is no parte of his Imperi∣al Power. It is a spiritual Power, whereby he is made the sonne of God. He maie thereby be ruled by a Christian Bishop. But verely, he hath no Power geeuen to him, whereby he maie rule Bishoppes. * 1.7 Baptisme maketh a man the Childe of the Churche. But * it is Imposition of handes, in consecra∣tinge a Christian Priesie to be a Bishop, that geueth him rule ouer others, and not the Sacramente of Baptisme. Therefore, Emperours were not the holders or kepers of Councelles, the firste fiue hundred yeares. Yea, three hundred were fully expired, before the Emperoure professed openly the Christian Faithe. So mutche the lesse maie you marueile, that nowe the Bishop of Rome, calleth and kepeth Coun∣celles, chiefely by his owne authoritie.‡ 1.8 For he succedeth Peter, not Nero. He tooke his authoritie of Christe imm•• diatly, not of the people of Rome. Be the Emperoure Christian, or not Christian, the Bi∣shop of Rome by* 1.9 nature of his Bishoppes office, is not onely alwaies a Christian man, but also a chiefe Prieste.
VVhere you saie, the Bishop of Rome in summoning the late Councel, did besides good considera∣tion, in that he made a man, that is Prince of the whole world, no other wise partaker thereof, then he would make his owne seruainte: you forgette your selfe fouly, and seeme to recke litle what you speake, so you vtter your malice For who is that, whome you cal Prince of the whole worlde? VVhat contradiction is this? Saide you not in the same sentence before, that kinges are nowe fully possessed in the seueral partes of the whole Empire? Howe then cal you Ferdinande‡ 1.10 Prince of the whole worlde? VVel, this is but one of the common ornamentes of your Rhetorique. Sir the Emperour Fer∣dinande, of famous memorie, was not so abused of Pius the fourth, that blessed man, Bishop of Rome in these our daies. Ye rather are they, who abuse the Emperours Maiestie. For ye depose him cleane from his seate: ye finde faulte that euer Leo the thirde made an Emperoure in the VVeste. Ye complaine openly that the Emperial Maiestie had not continued stil at Constantinople. Bilike, to the intent the Turke might nowe haue had it, who is knowen to suffer in his Dominions al Faithes, and Religions: for whiche cause it maie seeme, ye fauer him. As for Pope Pius that nowe is, he deferred the olde priuilege of honoure vnto the Emperoure Ferdinande, without the olde burthen. For where as in olde times* 1.11 Councelles were holden by authoritie of the Pope, * as Socrates witnesseth, yet the Emperour bare the charge of calling the Bishoppes togeather.* 1.12 But nowe the Pope him selfe bare a greate parte of that burthen, and communicated his propose fully with the Emperoure.