The third Part of this Paragraph.
THERE remayneth the last part of [ 1] this impugnation of the Cardinalls letter,* which consisteth in the exa∣mining all the Authorityes and Sen∣tences of ancient Fathers, alledged by him in the same. As first of all, the comparison of the art, and deceipt vsed by Iulian the Emperour,* surnamed Apostata, and recounted by S. Gregory Nazianzen, in placing, and in∣serting the images of his false Gods, into the pictures of the Emperour, in his Imperiall banner: so, as no man could bow downe,* or reuerence the Emperours picture, (as then was the custome) but that he must adore also the images of the false Gods. Which art of temperament, the Cardinall doth compare vnto this mixture & com∣bination of clauses lawfull, and vnlawfull, Cyuill, and Ecclesiasticall in the Oath proposed; so as a man can not sweare the one, but he must sweare also the other. Page 106 Which similitude, although it do expresse most fitly the matter in hand; yet the Apologer being sorely pressed therwith seeketh many euasions to euacuate the same, by searching out dissimilitudes, and saying; That albeit a similitude may be admitted claudicare vno pede, to limp, or halt on one foote: yet this (saith he) is lame, both of feete & hands, and euery member of the body: And then he taketh vpon him to set downe at length the diuersityes that may be picked out. As first,
LIX. For if a man would tryfle, as our Apo∣loger doth, and seeke out differences betweene things, that are compared togeather, as like in some certayne poynts,* but vnlike in other; we should ouerthrow all similitudes whatsoeuer, and consequently we should eneruate many most heauenly speaches of our Saui∣our in the Ghospell, that stand vpon similitudes. As for example: Be yow wise as Serpents, and simple as Doues. What enemy of Christian Religion might not cauill,* and calumniate this? seeking out diuersityes betwixt a serpent and a man, and betweene the malicious craft of that malignant creature, and the wisedome that Page 107 ought to be in a prudent man. But it is sufficient that the similitude do hold in that particuler poynt, wherin Christ made the comparison. And so agayne, When our Sauiour maketh the comparison betweene the King∣dome of heauen, and the litle grayne of mustard-seed; who cannot fynd out infinite differences betweene the one and the other,* making the similitude to halt and limp in many more parts,* then it can go vpright. But it is sufficient,* that it stand, and halt not in that one poynt, wherin the comparison is made.
LX. I passe ouer many other like similitudes,* as that the Kingdome of heauen, is like to a man that sow∣eth good seed in his field: As also it is like to leauen, which a woman tooke and hid in three measures of meale, vntil the whole was leauened: It is like also to a treasure hid in the ground; and to a Marchant man, that seeketh good margarites, and precious stones: And vnto a net cast into the sea, and gathering togeather of all kynd of fishes. Who cannot (I say) fynd out diffe∣rences and diuersityes, if he would study for them in all these similitudes vsed by our Sauiour. For as for the last of the net, that gathereth togeather perforce, good and bad fish in the sea, seemeth hard to be applyed to the Kingdome of heauen, whether we vnderstand it, eyther of Gods Kingdome in the next world, or of the Church in this; for that in the next world good & bad are not admitted; and in this world, the Church of Christ gathereth none perforce, as the net doth. But yet in the poynt it selfe, wherin Christ our Sauiour made the comparison, the similitude doth hold; and that is sufficient to shew the impertinent indeauour of this A∣pologer heere, to seeke out diuersityes, that appertayne not to the poynt wherin the comparison is made.
LXI. The next example which our Apologer see∣keth [ 2] to auoyd or euacuate in the Cardinalls letter, is that of old Eleazar in the booke of Machabees, who rather Page 108 then he would do a thing vnlawfull, and against his owne conscience,* or that might be scandalous to others, he refused not to suffer all kynd of torments; which the Cardinall applyeth to the taking of this vnlawfull Oath,* by such as are Catholicks, but especially by the Arch-priest, head of the Clergie in England, whose case he presumeth to be more like to that of Eleazar, for his age, estimation, and authority aboue the rest. To which example the Apologer answereth thus:* That if the Arch-priests ground of refusing this Oath were as good as Eleazars was, for refusing to eate of the swynes-flesh that was proposed, and vrged vnto him, it might not vnfitly be applyed to his purpose:
LXII. The third example is of S. Basill surnamed [ 3] for his rare learning and holinesse, The great, who being most earnestly exhorted (as Theodoret recounteth the story) by Modestus the deputy of Valens the Arrian Empe∣rour,* sent of purpose to that effect, that he should ac∣cōmodate himself to the said Emperours will,* & pre∣sent Page 109 tyme, and not suffer so many great Churches to be abandoned (for that all such bishops,* as would not accommodate themselues were sent into banishment) for a little needles subtility of doctrines, not so much to be esteemed: offering him also, the friendship of the Emperour, and many other great benefits to ensue, both to him and others, if he would in this poynt shew himselfe conformable. But this holy and prudent man (saith the Cardinall) answered, That it was not to be indured, that any one syllable of* dyuine doctrynes, should be corrupted, or neglected; but rather, that for the defence therof, all kynd of torment was to be im∣braced. Out of which example the Cardinall doth gather, how strict and wary a good man must be, in yealding to any thing neuer so litle, that is preiudicall to the integrity of Catholicke doctryne: and it seemeth very fit to the purpose, and the cases somwhat like.
LXIII. Yet doth our Apologer by all meanes pos∣sible seeke to wype of, or weaken all that can be infer∣red out of this example.* And first of all, he beginneth with a meere calumniation thus:
LXIV. And do these words last adioyned make Page 110 any thing at all for our Apologer? Or rather agree they not fitly to the purpose of the Cardinals exhortation, though for breuityes sake he left them out? How then is their omission brought in for a profe of A common & ordinarie tricke of the Cardinals, in all his citations, to take only that which is for him, & leaue out what makes against him? How is this against him? Or how doth this shew any such ordinary tricke of falshood in the Cardinal, not in one or two, but in all his citations? Doth this man care what he saith? This then is one shift, to answere this Ancient, or rather Anticke, as heere he is made. Let vs see an other.
LXV. His second is by taking aduantage of tran∣slation out of the Greeke,* in which Theodoret wrote his story, or rather by peruerting the same in some pointes to his purpose. For which cause he repeateth againe the substance of the history in these wordes: But that it may appeare (saith he) whether of vs hath greater right to this place (of Theodoret about S. Basil) I will in few wordes shew the Authous drift.* The Emperour Valens being an Arrian, at the perswasion of his wife, whē he had depriued all the Churches of their Pastours, came to Caesarea, where S.* Basil was then Bishop; who, as the story reporteth, was the light of the world. Be∣fore he came, he sent his Deputy to worke it, that S. Basil should hold fellowship with Eudoxius (which Eudoxius was Bishop of Constantinople and the principall of the Arrian faction) or if he would not, that he should put him to banishment. Now when the Emperours Deputy came to Caesarea,* he sent for Basil, intreated him hono∣rably, spake pleasingly vnto him, desired he would giue way to the tyme, neyther that he would hazard the good of so many Churches
LXVI. This is the truth of the storie (saith he:) & I haue layd downe at length his declaration, to the end that his sleightes may the better appeare in eluding the force of this Answere of S. Basil, as though he had said only, that no syllable of Gods word was to be suffered to be corrupted, wheras his meaning was, not only of Gods word, or of Scriptures alone, but, Ne vnam quidem syllabam diuinorum dogmatum,* not any one syllable of dyuine doctrine, taught by the Catholicke Church, and so much import his wordes in greeke, which are guylfully heere translated: for that insteed of the forealleadged sentence, wherein consisteth the substance of the said answere, to witt: That for them that are throughly instructed in Gods word, they can neuer suffer any syllable thereof to be corrupted, he should haue said:*That they that haue beene brought vp & nourished in sacred learning, cannot suffer any one syllable of dyuine doctrynes (of the Church) to be violated, which is cōforme also to S. Ba∣sils purpose in hand. For that the controuersy, which he and other Catholicke Bishops had with the Arrian Doctors in those dayes, was not only, nor immediatly about the Scriptures out of which the Arrians alleadged more aboundantly then their aduersaries, but about cer∣tayne doctrynes determined by the Church, especially by the Councell of Nice, as namely about the vse of the wordes and doctrines of hom•sion, or consubstantiality, hypostasis, substance, person, trinitie, and other the like; and whether they should say Gloria Patriet Filio, or Gloria Patri cum Filio; or in Filio, & such other differences, which vnto the Deputy Modestus, seemed but small matters and subtilityes of doctrine, but to S. Basil matters of great Page 112 moment: for so much as they were now determined by the Church, and thereby made Diuina dogmata, Diuyne doctrines, though they were not all expresly found in Scriptures. So as this sleight in trāslating S. Basils answer, That such as were throughly instructed in Gods worde could neuer suf∣fer any syllable therof to be corrupted (as though he had meant only of Scripturs) is not sincere, neyther agreable eyther vnto the letter of the Greeke text, or meaning of S. Basill.
LXVII. Let vs see then his third shift,* to put of this matter, which is the same that before we haue mentioned in the first example of Iulian, to witt, by seeking out differences, & disparityes, betweene the clauses or members that are compared togeather, saying: That albeit Basil and the Arch-priest may haue some compa∣rison; yet not our Orthodoxe King with an Arrian Emperour. Basil was sollicited to become an Arrian: but the Arch-priest, not once touched for any article of faith. And so he goeth forward with many contrapositions. But I haue spoken suffi∣ciently before of the weaknes of this manner of argu∣ment. And if we remoue the mentions of some persons, that may be offensiue, the matters themselues will easily discouer their conformity. For if yow had de∣maunded Modestus the Deputy then, in fauour of what religion would he haue S. Basil to conforme himselfe & subscribe; he would haue said the Orthodoxe, no lesse then the Iudges of England do now, that require this Oath: And yet did not S. Basil thinke so.* And if any man should haue called that Emperour an Arrian, it would haue bene no lesse offensiue, then to call a Protestant-Prince at his day, a Caluinist or Lutheran; notwithstanding that the reason of difference betweene the Catholicks and Arrians at that day, be the same, that is betweene Catholicks and Protestants at this day: to witt, the following, or impugning of the vniuersall knowne Church, descending from Christes tyme, vnto Page 113Saint Basils, and from Saint Basils to ours.
LXVIII. There remayne yet 3. or 4. other exāples mentioned by the Cardinall in his Epistle to the Arch∣priest, wherof the first two are of S. Peter, and Marcellinus the Pope, whose fortitude and diligence in rysing agayne, he desyreth him to imitate, if perhaps he follo∣wed their infirmity in falling. The other two, are of S. Gregorie,* and S. Leo, two holy and learned Popes, and for that cause both of them surnamed the Great, who do set downe in dyuers places, the obligation that all Ca∣tholicke Christian men haue, to hold vnion and subor∣dination with the Sea Apostolicke. Vnto the first two examples, as there is litle said, but disparityes only sought out, betweene Peter and Marcellinus, and the story also of Marcellinus called in question; so I leaue the same to the Cardinall himselfe to treate more at large: for so much, as in his former books, & workes, he hath hand∣led the same sufficiently; as also the third obiection, made against S. Gregorie, about refusing the name of Vni∣uersall Bishop. And the same I must say of the 4. also, S. Leo, whome the Apologer confesseth to be truly alledged against him,* for exalting the Authority of S. Peter, and firmitie of his faith, which he putteth of with this scoffe borrowed from D. Iohn Reynolds his booke of Conference in the Tower,* That as Tully said to Hortensius the Orator, when he praised immoderatly eloquence, That he would lift her vp to heauē, that himselfe might go vp with her: so would S. Leo lift vp S. Peter with prayses to the sky, that he being his heire, might go vp also, and be exalted with him.
LXIX. And after this scorne, he picketh out diuers sentences of S. Leo his works,* which seeme somewhat o∣dious, & to contayne ouermuch praise, & exaltation of S. Peter, & his Authority; all takē out of the said Reynolds Booke, as Reynoldes himselfe had takē the greatest part of thē out of M. Iewell, to whome the same was very suffi∣ciently Page 114 answered before by D. Harding, and the most of them shewed to be meere calumniations. The first and chiefe wherof is this,*That our Lord did take S. Peter into the fellowship of indiuisible vnity; which S. Leo his aduersaries going about to wrest to an absurd sense, to wit, that this indiuisible vnity must eyther be in person, or nature with Christ, D. Harding sheweth playnly by S. Leo his owne words, sense, and drift, that he meant it only of the indiuisible vnity or fellowship of the high name of Rocke of the Church, which Christ our Sauiour the chiefe and fundamentall Rocke imparted to none, but to S. Peter, and consequently that vnity of name of Rocke was indiuisible betwene them: which if eyther M. Iewell, or M. Reynolds, or our Apologer would haue equally considered, they needed not to go about to disgrace so ancient a Father with so meere a cauill: or at leastwise it being once ans∣wered, they ought not to haue so oftē repeated it againe, without some new matter, or reason for the same, or impugnation of the former answere.
LXX. But I will not trouble yow with any more at this tyme, albeit there ensue in the Apology diuers other poynts that might be stood vpon, not for that they conteyne any great substance of matter, but for that they seeme to proceed out of no small auersion of mynd, acerbity, and gall in the writer, against all sortes of Catholicke people: which CHRIST IESVS amend and mollify, and giue him light from heauen to see the truth, that he so bitterly impugneth.
LXXI. And as he dealeth with S. Leo, so doth he much more in the same kynd with D.or Sanders, and Cardinall Bellarmine → ,* cyting out of their workes, dyuers sentences culled and layd togeather, that seeme lesse respectiue to the Authority of temporall Kings and Princes, and all this to incite more his Ma.tie against them, and those of their Religion: and fynally, against the Cardinall, he concludeth in these wordes: That God is no more contrary to Page 115 Belial, light to darknes, and heauen to hell, then Bellarmines estima∣tion of Kings is to Gods.* Which is a very passionate Conclu∣sion, if yow consider it well, for that setting asyde the preheminēce for iudging in matters of Religion, which in his Controuersyes he proueth both by Scripture, and testimony of all antiquity, to appertayne to Bishops and not to Princes (& so was practised for 300. yeares after Christ, when few, or no Kings, or Emperours were yet Christians;) in all other poyntes he speaketh so reue∣rently of them, and defendeth their Supreme Authority with as great respect as any Authour (perhaps) hath euer done before him. And to pretermit other places, let the Reader but looke ouer the first 16. Chapters of his Booke de Laicis, and he shall fynd not only the Au∣thority of Princes proued to be from God, by many Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, Reasons, and other Au∣thorityes of Saints, against Anabaptists, Atheists, and other miscreants of our tyme; but the quality also, and ex∣cellent power of the said Princely Authority so exalted both for making of lawes, iudging, condemning, wa∣ging warre, and like actions of supreme power; as will easily refute this cauillation.
LXXII. And among other propositions tending to that effect, he hath this in the beginning of his eleuenth Chapter, which he proueth largely, and of purpose throughout the same; not only, That Temporall Princes are to be obeyed out of Conscience, or for Conscience sake; but also, Quod lex Ciuilis non minùs obligat in Conscientia, quàm lex Diuina:* That the Cyuil law of the Temporall Prince doth no lesse bynd the Subiect in Conscience, thē the law that commeth immediatly from God him∣self. And how then is Cardinall Bellarmyne said heere to be no lesse contrary to God,* concerning Kings Autho∣rity, then light to darknes, and heauen to hell? But especially if yow consider further, that when Cardinall Bellarmyne in that booke, commeth to treat of the Authority of Tem∣porall Page 116 Princes in matter of Religion, though he set downe this Conclusion, That, Non pertinet ad eos Iudicium de Religione, The authority of iudging of Religion (which is true or false) belongeth not vnto them, but vnto Bi∣shops: yet, Pertinet ad eos defensio Religionis, the defence and protection of Religion appertayneth vnto them: as also the cyuill gouernmēt in cyuill matters ouer all persons, as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall, which is so much as a Catholicke man can giue to Caesar, reseruing to God that which is Gods.
LXXIII. And albeit this might be sufficiēt to shew the tooth that is held against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , and the ardent appetite these Ministers haue to disgrace him in somewhat: yet am I inforced to lay forth some few examples more, wherby, as in a cleere glasse, the indiffe∣rent Reader will see, behold, and wonder also, at the manner of dealing vsed against him to that end.
LXXIV. And now we haue already seene, what general Conclusions haue bene gathered against him: That he vseth to contradict himselfe wittingly, so often as euer he is pressed with any hard argument by his Aduersary: That his common tricke is to tell the sentence of his Authour without his sense: That he seeketh euery-where to debase Kingly authority,*and the like. Which generalityes, as, in truth and reason, they may not be inferred, but vpon proofe, and induction of many particularyties: so when it commeth to tryall, yow haue seene not so much, as any one particuler sufficiently proued. Now shall yow heare some more examples of calumnious dealing with him.
LXXV. Pag. 92. the Apologer speaking of S. Gregorie the Great, and going about to interpret those wordes of his, alleadged by the Cardinall, where he calleth▪* the Sea Apostolicke Caput fidei, the Head of faith, in regard of the direction in matters of Faith, that is to be taken from thence, as from the Head; the Apologer would haue it vnderstood, that for so much as in that Page 117 place he speaketh to the Bishop of Palermo about the vse of the Pall, accustomed to be gyuen by the sea Apostolicke to Archbishops, S. Gregories meaning is, that the Sea Apostolicke of Rome is head only in matters of Cerimo∣nyes,* and then he inferreth thus: VVhich sense (saith he) if yow will not admit, giue me leaue to say that once of one (Gre∣gorie) which Bellarmyne himselfe saith often of many of the Fa∣thers, Minùs cautè locutus est: Gregorie spake not so aduisedly: And the latin translation hath, Quod ille de multis, & saepe dicit, ex omni numero Patrū, That Bellarmyne saith it often, & of many, and of all sortes of Fathers; to wit, that they spake inconsideratly: and yet when I went to examyne the two places of Bellarmynes workes, cyted by our Apo∣loger in the margent, I found a strange abuse, to wit, no such thing at all spoken of the Fathers, but only of one Nicolaus de Lyra, made a Christian of a Iew, not much aboue two hundred yeares past, who seeming by some words of his, to hold a certayne extrauagāt opiniō, that S. Peter, & S. Paul were not put to death at Rome, but at Hierusalem,* against the generall consent of all antiquity, Cardinal Bellarmyne expoundeth first, what his true meaning was, to witt, nothing in deed differing from the Fathers expositions, and namely of S. Hierome, and then addeth, Quanquam minùs cautè locutus est &c: Albeit Lyranus in his manner of speach, was not so wary, as he might haue byn, in giuing suspicion of so absurd an opinion, and so contrary to all the ancient Fathers. Heere then yow see, how matters are strayned. That which Cardinall Bellarmyne speaketh only of Nicolaus Lyranus vpon so iust occasion, as this was, is extended by our Apologer, to often, many, and all sortes of Fathers. Is this good dealing? How can the Apologer defend himself in this place, from willfull exaggeration, and voluntary mi∣staking? In the other place cyted by him lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2. there is no such matter at all. But let vs see some other like examples.
Page 118 LXXVI. Pag▪ 108. he setteth downe this generall odious proposition-out of Bellarmyne: That Kings are rather slaues, then Lordes. And may a man thinke this to be true or likely, that so rude a proposition should come from Bel∣larmine? Looke vpon the place by him cyted lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 7. & yow will maruaile extremly at this manner of proceeding. For that in this very place, yow shall fynd that the Cardinall doth most exalt, and confirme by Scriptures, Fathers, and other arguments, the dignity and authority of the cyuill Magistrate among Chri∣stians. And in the next precedent Chapter before this cyted, he hath this begining.
LXXVII. So ← Bellarmine → : and then passing to the next Chapter heere cyted, which is the seuenth, he proueth the same by another argument, which is. That in the state of Innocency, if Adam had not synned, wee should haue had Cyuil subiection and gouernment; and consequently it cānot be thought to be euill, or brought in by sinne, or for the punnishment of synne, as the Ana∣baptistes affirmed, but must needs be of God, & from God. True it is (saith he) that seruile, or slauish subiection, was brought in after the fall of Adam, and should not haue byn in the state of In∣nocency, but cyuill subiection should. And then he sheweth the differences betweene these two sortes of gouernment, and subiections, to witt, that the one, which is the ser∣uile, tendeth wholy to the vtility and emolument of him that gouerneth, and nothing to them that are go∣uerned. But the other which is cyuill and politick, ten∣deth principally to the profit of them that are gouer∣ned Page 119 therby. So as if there be any seruitude, saith ← Bellarmine → (but he meaneth not slauish) in this Ciuill principality, it falleth rather vpon him, that gouerneth the people to their owne vti∣lity, then vpon the subiectes that receaue the said vtility therby. And so are Bishops called the seruantes of their flockes, and the Pope himselfe, The Seruant of seruants: and S. Augustine vpon those wordes of our Sauiour in S. Matthews Ghos∣pell (He that will be made first (or chiefe) among you,*must be the seruant of all the rest) doth proue at large, that, In Ciuili Principatu, magis s•ruus est, qui praeest, quàm qui subest: In a Ciuill Principality, he is more a seruant that gouerneth to other mens profit, then he that obeyeth, to his owne.
LXXVIII. This is all that Cardinall Bellarmyne hath about this matter: wherin he doth scarce name a King,* as yow see, but Bishops, and Popes to be ser∣uants in the gouermēts of those, whome they gouerne; though he include good Kings in like manner, putting this difference betwene a good King, & a Tyrant, out of Aristotle; That a good king gouerneth to the profit of his Subiects,* wherin he is their seruant in effect (though not their slaue, as this man odiously vrgeth) and a Ty∣rant, that turneth all to his owne vtility without respect of those, whome he gouerneth. And is this so absurd doctrine? Or doth this iustify the Apologers outra∣gious proposition, That Bellarmyne affirmeth Kings to be rather slaues then Lordes? Who would not be ashamed of this intemperate accusation?
LXXIX. And now there remayne eleuen places more of like quality, alleadged by the Apologer out of Cardinall Bellarmynes workes,* which being examined by the Authors wordes, meaning, and sense, haue the same want of sincerity which the precedent had.* The second is, That Kings are not only Subiects to Popes, to Bishops, to Priests, but euen to Deacons. This is a playne cauill: for the fault, if any be, falleth vpon S. Chrysostome, and not vpon the Cardinall, whose wordes are these: S. Chrysostome in Page 120 his eyghtie and three Homilie vpon S. Matthewes. ghospell, doth subiect Kings and Princes (in Eccle∣siasticall matters) not only to Bishops, but also to Dea∣cons. For thus he speaketh to his Deacon: Si Dux quis∣piam, si Consul, si is qui Diademate ornatur &c. If a Duke, if a Consul, if one that weareth a Crowne, commeth to the Sacramēt vn∣worthily, restrayne him, and forbid him, for that thou hast greater power then he. What fault hath Cardinall ← Bellarmine → heere in alledging the words, and iudgement of S. Chryso∣stome?
LXXX. The third place is,*That an Emperour must content himself to drinke, not only after a Bishop, but after a Bishops Chaplin. But these wordes are not found in Bel∣larmine, but are odiously framed by the Apologer out of a fact of S. Martyn Bishop of Tewers in France, related by auncient Sulpitius in his life,* that he sitting one day at dynner with the Emperour Maximus, and the Empe∣rours officer bringing a cup of wine to his Lord, he would not drinke therof first, but gaue it to the Bishop to beginne, who accepting therof, and drinking, deliue∣red the said cup to his Priest to drinke next after him, thinking no lay-man to be preferred before a Priest, saith Sulpitius. But what doth this touch ← Bellarmine → , that doth but relate the Story. May he, in truth, be said to •rouch, that an Emperor must be cōtēt to drinke after a Bishops Chaplin? Who seeth not this violēt inforcemēt?
LXXXI. His fourth place is this,*That Kinges haue not their Authority, nor office from God, nor his law; but from the law of Nations. Good God! what desyre is here descried of calumniation? Let any man read the two places here quoted, and he will blesse himselfe, I thinke, to see such dealing. For in the first place his wordes are these: Prin∣cipatus saecularis. &c. Secular Princedome is instituted by mā, & is of the law of Nations; but Ecclesiasticall Princedome is only from God, and by dyuine law, which he meaneth expresly of the first institution of those Principalyties, or Gouernmentes: Page 121 for that at the beginning God did not immediatly ap∣poynt these particuler and different formes of Tempo∣rall gouernment, which now the world hath, some of Kinges, some of Dukes, some of Common-wealthes, but appoynted only, that there should be Gouernment, lea∣uing to ech nation to take or choose what they would. But the Ecclesiasticall Gouernment by Bishops was or∣dayned immediatly by Christ himselfe, for which cause ← Bellarmine saith in the second place heere alledged: That Kingdomes are not immediatly instituted from God, but mediatly only by meanes of the people; which people therfore may change their formes of gouernment, as in many Countryes we see that they haue: but yet when any forme of Gouernment is established, and Gouernours placed therin, their authority and power is from God, and to be obeyed out of Conscience, vnder payne of damnation,* as before I haue shewed out of Bellarmyne. And he that will read but from his third Chapter de Laicis vnto the 13. shall fynd store of assertions & proofes to that effect, to omitt many other places throughout his workes. So as the former proposition, That Kings haue not their Authority nor office from God nor his law, is very frau∣dulently sett downe. For if he vnderstand, that their forme of Principality and Office therin, is not imme∣diatly from Gods institution, but by meanes of humane lawes, of succession, election, or the like; it is true. But if he meane, that their Authority is not from God, eyther mediate, or immediate, or induceth not obliga∣tion of Conscience in obeying them, as it seemeth he would haue his Reader to thinke; it is most false. And the Apologer ought not to haue walked in these obscu∣rityes, if he had meant vprightly.
LXXXII. I am weary to wade any further in these obiections, and yet will I not let passe to note three more, though most briefly, and almost in three words, leauing the rest to be examined by the Reader himselfe. The first is, That Church-men are as farre aboue Page 122 Kings, as the soule is aboue the body. The other: That Obedience due to the Pope, is for Conscience sake. The third: That Obedience due to Kings, is only for certayne respects of order and policy; The first and last being meere calumniations and the other not denyed by vs. For as for the first, though the words heere mentioned be not in Bellarmyne: yet the compari∣son it self of Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers in the Church, vnto the soule, and body, is the comparison of S. Gregorie Nazianzen related only by Bellarmyne,* and con∣sequently it must needs follow, as the same Father also inferreth, that so much more eminent, as the soule is aboue the body, so much more excellent is the power Ecclesiasticall aboue Temporall, which S. Chrisostome in like manner proueth at large in his books de Sacerdotio: So as this is not Bellarmynes comparison, but of the said two auncient Fathers, and consequently Bellarmyne is not here reprehended, but they.
LXXXIII. The other two places, if they be two, and not one, but made two for multiplying of odious matter against vs, haue byn so fully answered by vs before, as we shall need to say no more heere therof. For as Obediēce is due out of Conscience vnto the Pope, & other Bishops, & Spirituall Gouernours, in spirituall Gouernments,* by the Apostles precept, Obedi•e Praepositis vestris, &c. Obey your Prelates, & be subiect vnto them; for they watch, as being to render accompt for your soules: So the same Apostle hath commanded also, due Obedience to Temporall Magistrates, in temporall affayres, by the same obligation of Conscience, as Car∣dinall Bellarmyne doth shew at large, in the places by me alledged. And I maruaile with what Conscience the Apologer heere can deny it, cyting a place for the same in his margent, which hath no such matter, as he would inferre,*That not for Conscience, but only for certayne respects &c. For that treating of the obligation of Obedience to temporall lawes, in temporall affayres, his second pro∣position is; Non sunt exempti Clerici ab obedientia legum Ciui∣lium:Page 123 Clergie-men are not exempted from the obedience of temporall lawes. And in another place before cyted;*Lex Ciuilis non minùs obligat in conscientia quàm lex diuina: The Temporall law byndeth no lesse in conscience, then the Diuine. So as all those odious matters are but frandu∣lently layd togeather to make Catholicks, & their cause hatefull, especially vnto him, whom vnto they desyre most of all men vnder God, to yield most satisfaction for their temporall dutyes, and would hope also to effe∣ctuate it, if these make-bate Ministers did not by their continuall incitations, clamours, and false suggestions disturbe the same, and renew daylie iealosyes and distrustes in his Ma.ties mynd against vs.