The Replie.

Whatsoeuer cause there was to wish any wicked Emperor to be deposed, yet was there neuer cause to authorize the Pope to depose him, which is plentifully * proued.

But Popes (you will say) did formerly depose Emperors: as though from a case de facto, that is, of an act of deposing, you would conclude a case ex iure, that is, inferre a right to depose. This would be a welcome plea to malefactors of all kinds, and in this kind not a little preiudice your Popes: because Bel∣larmine Page  73 being vrged with examples of many kEmperors who did iudge and depose Popes; doth returne this answer: These Em∣perors indeed, did so, but by what right let them shew. So we dri∣uing out one naile with another, oppose acts to acts, and say; But by what right Popes haue vnthronized Emperors let vs know? For we shall hereafter shew, that they had from God no such authoritie. Where is now your moderation to require of vs acknowledgement of iust causes of Popes acts, who (you know) proue that no cause can iustifie such proceedings? If you yet insist, and vrge to know the causes, why Popes did so insult vpon Emperors, moderate your appetite a while, till we come to the confutation: where I doubt not but you will at least satisfie your selfe, if not surfet. For the interim, it will con∣tent the Reader to vnderstand that which your Barckley pro∣ueth, namely, lThat in true historie it cannot be found, that euer heresie was a cause of abrogating the authoritie of Emperors.