The defence of Constantine vvith a treatise of the Popes temporall monarchie. Wherein, besides diuers passages, touching other counsels, both generall and prouinciall, the second Roman Synod, vnder Siluester, is declared to be a meere fiction and forgery. By Richard Crakanthorp, Doctor of Diuinity.

CHAP. I.

Of the Popes Temporall Monarchy, and what important Consequents doe ensue thereof.

HAuing in the former Treatise fully demonstrated the for∣gery of that pretended Dona∣tion of Constantine, there re∣maines yet one consideration touching the Popes title both to those Kingdomes which are said to be giuen therin, & to all other Kingdomes in the world. For though they magnifie & make much (as you haue seene) of this and other Donations, yet doe you thinke the Donation of Constantine, Charles, Henry, Otho, or any other Emperors, by somea 1.1 of which Rome, Italy, and all the Westerne Prouinces and Kingdomes are said to be giuen to the Pope, that this will satisfie the pride and insatiable auarice of the man of sin? No, the whole world must be his Kingdome; and

his title to it, and euery part of it, must not be from any mortall man; he in Christs right, and immedi∣ately from him, will be the direct supreame tem∣porall Lord of all: from him must hold all Kings, Princes, and all other persons whatsoeuer, or else they can haue no right vnto either lands, goods, or possessions in this world. But lest I may seeme to impaire their Popes right, let vs heare their claime and challenge in their owne words.

Goe to now, O ye most blessed Apostles (saith Popeb 1.2 Hildebrand vnto Peter and Paule,) doe you con∣firme what I haue done, that all men may know, if you being in heauen can binde and loose, that I also here on earth can both giue and take away Empires, King∣domes, Principalities, & quicquid habere mortales possunt, and whatsoeuer any mortal man can haue. This ought, saith Pope Leoc 1.3 the 9. to satisfie you de terreno, & caelesti Imperio, imò de regali sac••rdotio, that both the temporall and heauenly Kingdome, yea a kingly priesthood is giuen to the Apostolike See, and that diuinitusd 1.4 by God himselfe, and not onely by men. Christ hath committed to Pe••er saith Pope Nicholas the 2. terrenie 1.5 s••mul & caelestis Imperii iura, the rights both of the earthly and heauenly Empire. When the Pope giues or sends a consecrated sword, saith their bookef 1.6 of sacred cerimonies, to the Emperour or other King, which is vsed to be done on the night of Christs natiuitie, he then by Sixtus cuartus, is appointed to say, This Pontificall sword do••h figure or betoken summam temporalem potestatem a Christo Pontifici collatam, That the su∣preame temporall power, is giuen by Christ vnto the

Pope his vicar, according to that saying, Data est mi∣hi omnis potestas, All power is giuen to me, both in heauen and in earth; and according to that also: He shall rule from Sea vnto Sea, and from the flood vnto the worlds end. Pope Bonifaceg 1.7 8. boasting that he had the power of both swords, shewed this by his actions also, when in the yeere of that grand Iubile 1300. the first day, he rode as Pope in his Pontificali∣bus, and the next day, imperiali habitu, infula Caesarea insignis, he rode in his imperiall robes with the imperiall Crown, hauing a naked sword carried be∣fore him, & one proclayming with a loud voice, Ecce hic duo gladii, Behold here are two swords, the spirituall and temporall, both giuen vnto me.

The Papacie or papall authoritie is defined by Alu. Pelagius* 1.8 in this maner, Papatus est Principa∣tus tam in spiritualibus quàm in temporalibus, The Papacie is a Supremacie both in spirituall & tem∣porall matters. The Pope, saith August. Triumphush 1.9 is greater then any King or Emperour, tam in temporalibus quàm in spiritualibus, as well in tem∣porall as inspirituall matters: and as God is the Lord of all by vniuersall iurisdiction, so is the Pope his Vi∣car greater then any King or Emperour, both in spi∣rituall and temporall things. The supream power and dominion, saith Thom. Bozius,i 1.10 which subordi∣nates vnto it all other domin••ons, datū est iure diui∣no pon••ifici Romano, is giuen by the diuine Law to the Pope: And by this, Pas••e oues meas which was spoken only to Peter, significatur sacerdotalis ac rega∣lis potestas simul, is signified both pontificall and regall power. So that in the Pope alone is Apex vtri∣usque

potestatis, the top of both powers, spirituall and temporall. The temporallh 1.11 power rests and resides in the Pope, tanquam capite sacerdotum mun∣dique, as in the head both of Priests and of the World. The Pope, saith Rod. Sancius,i 1.12 in Christs stead is chiefe in the whole world, both in spirituall & temporall affaires. To the pope, saith Rad. Cupersk 1.13 God hath committed the rights both of the terrene and heauenly Kingdome: againe,l 1.14 The direct domi∣nion of the Empire belongs vnto God, and by conse∣quent to the Pope his vicar. The Pope, saith Anto∣ninus,m 1.15 for vniuersall iurisdiction both in tempo∣rall and spirituall matters is greater then any other King or Emperor. The Pope, saith Lel Zeccus,n 1.16 by the Law of God hath power and temporall dominion ouer the whole world. The supreame temporall iuris∣diction throughout the whole world, saith Franciscus Bosius,o 1.17 belongs to Peters successor, so that he is both Hierarch and Monarch in all things, Againep 1.18 The supreame Monarchy in all temporal affaires, be∣longs to Peters successor, and that iure diuino, by the diuine Law expressed in the Scriptures. The scope of his whole booke is, as himselfe declares, to shew, that Peterq 1.19 and the Pope succeed to Christ, as well in his Kingdome as in his priesthood, and that Peter and the Pope is both King and priest according to the order of Melchisedeck. It is certaine, saith Baro∣niusr 1.20 that iudiciall power (in secular causes) is giuen to Bishops (to wit, to Christs vicars) not only by Apostolicall institution, but euen by Christ, whose priesthood is according to the order of Melchisedeck, both a King and a priest. The secular power, saith

Aquinass 1.21 is ioyned in the Pope, with the spirituall, the Pope hath vtriusque potestatis apicem, the toppe of both powers spirituall and temporall, by the disposing of him, who is both a King & a Priest ac∣cording to the order of Melchisedech. That the Pope iure diuino hath power ouer the whole world, as well in temporall as Ecclesiasticall matters, is taught, saith Bellarminet 1.22 by August. Trium∣phus by Aluarus Pelagius, Hostiensis, Panormi∣tan, Siluester, and diuers others: yea Hostiensis tea∣cheth, that Christ by his comming, translated all the dominion, euen that of Infidell Princes, vnto the Church; and that this Dominion so resides now in Christs Vicar, that hee may giue by his owne right the kingdomes of Infidels to whomsoeuer hee will. The Pope, saith Martau 1.23 hath supreme laicall power in temporall matters, and that not onely in order to spirituall causes, but naturally and temporally. And againx 1.24 As in the Church Triumphant, so also in the Church Militant, there is but one supreme Gouer∣nour, to whom all other as well Clerkes, as laicks, both Kings and other, are to obey, and that both in tempo∣rall and in spirituall matters; and this supreame Gouernoury 1.25 is the Pope. Again,z 1.26 The Pope hath the same power that Christ had, and Peter exercised: but Christ as man, had the fulnesse euen of temporall power, and Peter exercised temporally, that temporall power. Therefore the Pope hath and may exercise the same temporall iurisdiction temporally, and in his owne nature. Both by the Law Diuine and na∣turall, saith Henr. Gandauensisa 1.27, doth the priest∣hood excell the Empire, & penes ipsum residet de iu∣re

diuino vtraque iurisdictio, and both iuridictions as well in temporall as spirituall matters, as also the immediate execution of that iurisdiction doth reside in the Priest, by the Law both diuine and na∣turall. It is the common opinion of Schoole Diuines, saith Careriusb 1.28, that the Pope hath iure diuino plenissimam potestatem in vniuersum orbem terra∣rum, the most full power ouer the whole world, both in Ecclesiasticall and temporall matters. A∣gainec 1.29, As the Pope cannot say that he holds not Christs place here in earth, so neither can hee deny, that he hath the temporall dominion of things; for as the earth is the Lords, and all that is therein, euen so are all subiected vnto Christ, and by him vnto the Pope; to whom, being his vicar, Christ hath com∣mitted the right both of the heauenly and earthly Empire. Christ, saith Scioppiusd 1.30, is the Lord of the whole world by a double title, of Creation, and Redemption; and hee 1.31 ascending into heauen, made the Pope his Vicegerent in them all, to whom he gaue not onely directiue, but coactiue power, that he might rule them with a rod of yron, that is, by his secular powerf 1.32. Again, the Church, saith heg 1.33, is like vnto a Calf, whose horn, that is, his secular powerh 1.34 is set in the head, (that is, in the Pope) which power though in the yonger age of the Church, it was not growne, yet afterward (wheni 1.35 the Calfe was stronger) he did with his horne, push at Kings and Kingdomes, and bring them in subiection vnto him. And a 1000. such like sayings, he, and others haue to this purpose.

Nor doe they holde this assertion of the Popes supreame temporall dominion, as a doubtfull opinion, but as a doctrine of faith. It is tenendum recta fide, saith Rod. Sanciusa 1.36, to bee by the right faith, that the Pope, iure diuino, hath the true and onely immediate principality ouer the whole world, as well in temporall as in spirituall mat∣ters. The Pope, saith Rad. Cupersb 1.37, hath and that iure diuino, both powers, temporall and spirituall committed to him, and they* 1.38 who deny the Pope to haue both these powers, Euangelium negant, doe deny the Gospel. Tho. Bosiusc 1.39 approues that say∣ing of Hostiensis, That as it is Heretical to make two beginnings, so it is hereticall to make two Vicars of Christ heere vpon earth. As it is hereticall, saith Martad 1.40, to hold duo principia, two Authors of the world, so to hold that there are two Vicars of God (the one in temporall and the other in spi∣rituall matters) est haereticum, it is hereticall; and therfore the Pope himselfe saith, It is of necessitie of saluation, that euery creature should be subiect to the Pope, tam in temporalibus, both in temporll and spi∣ritual matters: & Dantese 1.41 the Florentine who held the contrary, was after his death condemned for an heretike. Boniface the 8. saith Careriusf 1.42 and Mar∣tinus Polonusg 1.43 writ letters to Philip the French King, wherein he told him, that the Pope is Lord through the whole world, both in temporall and spi∣rituall matters, & contrarium sentire haereticum iu∣d••cabat, and he iudged it to bee hereticall for any to hold the cōtrary. The same Carerius writing in defence of the Popes direct, temporall, dominion

ouer the whole world, intitles his bookea 1.44 Against impious polititians, and heretikes of this time; ac∣counting all for heretikes, who deny that tempo∣rall, direct dominion; one of which is Cardinall Bellarmine, against whom Careriusb 1.45 professedly writes.

Nor is this the Censure of Carerius alone, tou∣ching Bellarmine; Sixtus quintusc 1.46 so condemned that doctrine of Bellarmine, (although he indirect∣lyd 1.47 yeelds as much as can bee desired to the Pope) that because he did not hold this direct tem∣porall dominion of the Pope, he purposed to haue a∣bolished and burnt as hereticall all the books of Bel∣larmine.

Bartolus, as both Careriuse 1.48 & Covarruviasf 1.49 obserue, confidently affirmed that opinion which denies the Popes temporall Monarchy, to be he∣reticall. And Card. Baroniusg 1.50 doubted not to say, That the Catholike Doctrine, Haeresis errore notauit omnes, hath branded with the errour of he∣resie all those who take from the Church and chaire of Peter, either of the two swords, and who grant vnto it onely the spirituall sword.

From this supreame temporall Dominion which they thus giue to the Pope, they draw ma∣ny pretty conclusions. First, that neither the Em∣perour nor any King hath any temporall authority, power, or Iurisdiction, but only such as they deriue frō the Pope. The reason hereof is euident; for see∣ing all power, both spirituall and temporall, is gi∣uen first and immediately to him, none can haue any part of either, but from him. As all starres,

saith Careriusx 1.51, haue their light from the Sun which is the fountaine of light, so all power and au∣thority, quoad temporalium administrationem, euen in the gouernment of temporall matters, depends on that supreame power which is giuen to the Pope. Againey 1.52, The Pope hath primò & per se, primari∣ly and of himselfe, the Dominion ouer all temporall things; Emperorsz 1.53 Kings, and secular princes, re∣ceiue their power from God, but mediante Papa, by the mediation of the Pope, that is, Recipita 1.54 a Papa loco Dei, the Emperour receiues it from the Pope in Gods stead. Againe, the Popeb 1.55 is the husband of the world (a very fit wife sure for the Pope,) and all others depend vpon him as on the Architect. The Empire, saith Martac 1.56 depends not on God, but on the Church and the Pope. The power of iurisdiction, saith Aug. Triumph.d 1.57 in tē∣porall & in spirituall matters, est immediata in Papa solo, is immediat in the Pope alone. Againee 1.58, The power of Emperors & secular princes is such, that it is giuen to them by another (that is, the Pope) & eue∣ry one of thē, ab eo recognoscit esse omne quod habet, must acknowledge whatsoeuer they haue to bee from the Pope. It must be granted, saith Alv. Pela∣giusf 1.59 That no Emperors did rightly exercise the sword who receiued it not from the Pope. All secular power, saith Th. Boziusg 1.60, in all things depends and is from the power Ecclesiasticall, and that iure ipso diuinissimo, by the most diuine Law.

A second conclusion is this, that the Pope is an higher temporall Lord, and Emperour, then any, yea then all the secular Kings & Emperors in the world.

The reason of this is cleere: For seeing hee is the fountaine from which they deriue all their tem∣porall authority, the same Kingly and Imperiall authority, must needes be more eminently in him, then in them all, euen as light is more eminently▪ in the Sun then in the Moone and Starres which borrow their light from it. It is knowne, saith Popee 1.61 Innocent 3. that there is as great difference be∣twixt the Pope and the Emperor, as there is betwixt the Sunne and Moone. Now the Sunne being sixe thousand fiue hundred thirtie nine times greater then the Moone, as Astronomersf 1.62 teach, (for the Canonistsg 1.63 ignorantly talke of 47 times) the Pope is by Innocentius Decree, 6539. times greater then the Emperor. There is, saith Careriush 1.64 that proportion betwixt the Pope and the Emperor, as is betwixt the Sunne and the Moone; as the Sunne then is farre more excellent and eminent then the Moone, seeing she borrowes her splendor and light of the Sunne, so is the Pope then the Emperour, seeing his authority depends on the Pope, and is deriued from him. Bishops, and the Priesthood, saith Wal∣densisi 1.65, is as much preferred to the Kingly state, as gold is to lead, or the soule to the body, or heauen to earth. So much, saith Orichouiusk 1.66, doth the Priest excell the King, as a man doth excell a beast, yea, as muchl 1.67 as God doth excell a Priest, and that is by infinite degrees. Vpon consideration of these so great ods, Steuchusm 1.68 saith, That Constant. yeelded the City of Rome to a greater Emperor then himselfe, and that was, to the Pope. The Canons, saith Martan 1.69, put the Pope super verticem Im∣peratoris,

aboue the very top and crowne of the Emperour; and the Pope, saith Rad. Cupers,o 1.70 is deseruedly accounted Rex regum & dominus domi∣nantium, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Aug. Triumphus yet more triumphingly saith,p 1.71 The Sonne of God hath declared the altitude of Ecclesiasticall power, to bee aboue all principalities and powers, that vnto it should bow euery knee, both in heauen, in earth, and vnder the earth: and yet Stephanus Patracensis goes one step further, which will reach euen to God himselfe. In the Pope, saith heq 1.72, who is the supreame Hierarch in the Church, there is omnis potestas supra omnes po∣testates tam caeli, quàm terrae, all power aboue all powers, both in heauen and in earth: whom Rad. Cupers, following, saithr 1.73 The Lord hath so magni∣fied the Church, (that is, by his owne expositions 1.74 the Pope) that he hath preferred it not onely to Kings and Keisars, sed omnibus sub caelo, & supra cae∣lum existentibus, but to all that are either vnder, or aboue the heauens; and there is none, I thinke aboue the heauens, but God onely.

A third conclusion is this, That none can giue any lands, goods, or possessions to the Pope, but onely re∣store those things vnto him; The reason whereof is euident, for all these are the Popes own before, & that iure diuino, seeing as Marta saitht 1.75 Vniuer∣sus orbis est papae territorium, the whole world is the Popes territorie. If it be found sometimes, saith Thom. Boziusu 1.76 that certaine Emperors gaue some temporalties to the Pope, as Constantine to Silue∣ster, that is not to be vnderstood, that they gaue any

thing which was their owne, they restored that which was vniustly and tyrannically taken from the said Bishops. Constantine, saith Careriusx 1.77, did restore that which before he had vniustly deteyned, he restored to the Church and to the Pope those things, which he had deteyned from him, and had long withheld and abused by his tyrannicall power in seruing the Infer∣nall prince and Idols; therfore that Donation of Con∣stantine was in truth only a restitution: for seeing the earth and all that is therein, is the Lords, and by con∣sequent the Popes, Constantine gaue nothing at all of his owne, but he restored them, in recognition of the Lords, and the Popes Dominion. Againey 1.78 they are vtterly deceiued, who thinke that Charles, Pipine, or others, gaue Rome and other Cities in Italy to the Pope. The Pope hath immediatly from God his tem∣porall dominion, the same he hath from Councels de∣claratiuè, from Constantine promulgatiuè, that is, Councels only declared, and Constantine proclai∣med the Popes right and temporall dominion in them. We denie, saith Martaz 1.79 that the Pope founds his iurisdiction vpon the Donation of Constantine; for we haue alreadie proued that the Pope had, and still hath the whole power which Christ had, as well in temporall as in spirituall matters, neither did he pre∣iudice his own right in accepting those Donations, of Constantine and other Emperours; they in those gifts did but recognisea 1.80 therein, his supream iurisdiction and so int••rrupted that praescription of an absolute domin••on which they did pretend, acknowledgingb 1.81 their Kingdomes, Dominions, and States, to be held of the Pope, as of the Fountaine of Iurisdiction, and

Dominion. I haue often, saith Scioppius* 1.82, laught at those who altercate about the Donation of Constan∣tine, neither doe we care whether there be any publike record either of any such Donation, or cession and yeelding vp of Rome; for constat, it is manifest that Rome could not be giuen to the Church: and the rea∣son is, not that which the Lawyers suppose, for that Constantine could not alienate that, which belonged to the Common-wealth, sed quia tantùm, iure diuino tenet, but because the Pope holds Rome neither by any Donation, nor by inheritance, nor by right of warre, ne{que} vllo alio humano iure aut titulo, neither by any other humaine law or title whatsoeuer, but onely by right from God. It is God that gaue Rome to the Church, as meat to feed, as cloathes to apparell the Church. Constantinec 1.83 and other Emperors did but performe the office of an hand to reach the meat to the mouth, and put the apparell vpon the head.

This right of the Pope, when diuerse King∣domes (as they teach) acknowledged, they yeel∣ded the possession of those Kingdomes to the Pope, and so they became his. Of the Kingdomes of Spaine, Pope Gregory the seuenth thus writes, to the Kings and Princes thereof, (those were at that time & long after seuen,d 1.84 Arragon, Castile, Portingall, Granado, Lions, Nauar, and Gallicia,) Notūe 1.85 vobis fieri volumus, we will haue it knowne vnto you that which we may not conceal, and is need∣full for you to know; that the Kingdome of Spaine in ius & proprietatem traditum, was for right and proprietie yeelded to the Romane Church. And againef 1.86, writing to all Princes that goe into

Spaine, We beleeue (saith he) that you are not igno∣rant, that the Kingdom of Spaine from ancient time, proprii iuris sancti Petri fuisse, & adhuc nulli mor∣talium, sed soli Apostolicae sedi ex aequo pertinere, to haue been the proper right of Saint Peter, and now also to belong in right to no mortall man but onely to the Apostolike See; for that which once comes to the Church, can neuer be taken from the same. Particularly of the Kingdome of Arragon, Steuchusg 1.87 out of Innocentius the third saith, esse Apostolicae sedis, that it is the Popes. Of the Kingdome of Portingall, Steuchus also saith,h 1.88 Ecclesie Romanae est, that belongs to the Church of Rome, and because Hildefunsus knew it to belong to the Romane See from ancient time, he offered it to the Pope, and subiected it to him. Of the Kingdome of France, Boniface the eight saidi 1.89, It is subiect to the Pope both in temporall and in spirituall matters. Of the Kingdome of England, Alexander the secondk 1.90 affirmeth, that euer since it receiued Christianitie, it hath been in the hands and power of Saint Peter. Of the Kingdome of Scotland, Pope Boniface saith,l 1.91 that it is in the Popes power, and that he may giue and take away the same. Of Italy, Steuchus saith,m 1.92 Tota Italia est Ecclesiae, all Italy belongs to the Romane Church. Of the King∣dome of Sicily, Marta saith,n 1.93 The lawes doe ex∣presly teach that it is a part of the patrimonie of the Church; and Baronius hath writ an whole bookeo 1.94 to confirme the same. Of the Kingdome of Hun∣gary, Gregory the seuenth saith,p 1.95 Proprium ec∣clesiae est, It properly belongs to the Church of

Rome. So doe also the Kingdomes of Croatia, and Dalmatia, as out of the same Popeq 1.96 Hilde∣brands Registrie, Steuchus auoucheth. Of the Kingdome of Russia, Steuchus out of the same Hildebrand saith,r 1.97 Est iuris ac ditionis Romanae ecclesiae, the right and dominion of it belongs to the Church of Rome. Of the Kingdome of Denmarke, Steuchus out of Alexander the se∣cond saith,s 1.98 It is peculium & vectigal, the proper substance and tribute of the Romane Church. And what should I adde more, saith Steuchust 1.99, The power of the Romane Church is most ancient, super omni∣bus regnis & regibus, ouer all Kings and King∣domes; all monuments of the Popes are full, in shewing this power, whereby Popes haue ruled by their Empire, the whole World, habenas omnium terrarum tenentes, holding the raines and regiment ouer all Kingdomes in the Earth. Thus Steuchus.

A fourth conclusion is this, That as Emperors and secular princes deriue all their authoritie, so doe they hold all their Kingdomes, Crownes, Territories and possessions from the Pope, as tenants, as homa∣gers and vassals vnto him, or else they are meere v∣surpers of the same. The reason of this also is ma∣nifest; for seeing the whole world is the Popes Terri∣toryd 1.100, and he the Lord, yea the husbande 1.101 of the world, none may, nor yet in right can, enioy a∣ny part of his Territories, or company with his deare Wife, but by his allowance and dispensati∣on. Whence hath he (Frederick the King) the Em∣pire

but from vs? saith Pope Hadr.f 1.102 the 4. by ele∣ction of the Princes, he hath the name of King, by our consecration he hath the name of Emperor; Im∣perator quod habet totū habet a nobis, whatsoeuer the Emperor hath, he hath it of vs. It is in our power, vt demus illud (Imperium) cui volumus, to giue the Empire to whomsoeuer we will. We are placed of God aboue Nations and Kingdomes, to de∣stroy and roote out, to build and to plant. The Empe∣ror, saith Lel. Zecchusg 1.103 takes the Empire de ma∣nu Pontificis, at the Popes hand, and to the Pope doth belong the direct dominion of the Empire. A∣gaineh 1.104, The Pope is absolutely the Lord of the whole Christian world; Kings and Princes Imperia & regna ab illo recognoscere habent, must acknow∣ledge their Empires and Kingdomes to be held of him. The Emperor, saith Martai 1.105 is Feudatari∣us ecclesiae, & ab ea omnia recipit. He is feudatary to the Pope, and holds in fee all that he hath from him. Againek 1.106, We haue declared the Emperor, vniuersa humana habere a Papa, to hold all his worldly possessions and goods of the Pope. And for this cause he sweares* 1.107 feolty and homage to the Pope: the forme of which oath, being expressed, both in their booke of the Decreesl 1.108 and of sa∣cred ceremoniesm 1.109, Clem. 5. hath decreedn 1.110 it to be an oath of feoltie; and when Lotharius the Em∣perour had taken that oatho 1.111, hee was thereby madep 1.112 Homo Papae, the Popes man; that is to say, the Popes seruant or vassall; (for the

word vassusa 1.113, whence commeth vassallus, signifieth a seruant) and then as Martab 1.114 obserueth, Pope Inno∣cent the second permitted him, but in truth, as Sigo∣niusc 1.115 testifieth, mandauit, the Pope commanded Lotharius to be painted on a wall in the Popes pallace, quasi vassallum ad pedes prostratum, as a vassall pro∣strate at the Popes feet. The King of Arragon, saith Steuchusd 1.116, accepit in feudum, praedictum reg∣num, tooke that Kingdome in fee of Pope Inno∣centius the third: & recognoscitur a papa, saith Mar∣tae 1.117, and it holds of the Pope, by the annuall pay∣ment of 250 duccatesf 1.118. The Kingdomes of Na∣uar, and Granado, saith Martag 1.119, were giuen by Iulius the second to Ferdinand King of Spaine, and his successors, cum pacto vt recognoscerent Romanā ecclesiā in fidem & homagium, vpon this couenant, that they should hold those Kingdomes by feoltie and homage from the Church of Rome. The Canary Ilandsh 1.120 and Nigraria, fuerunt datae in feudum, were giuen in fee to the Emperour by the Pope, and Lewes King of Spaine, did feoltie and ho∣mage to the Pope for them, Anno 1343, binding him∣selfe to pay yeerely for the same 400 florens of gould. When Alexander the sixth gaue the Indies to the Kings of Castile and Portugall, saith Marta,i 1.121 reseruauit sibi recognitionem feudalem ab ambobus, he reserued a pension to be payd to the Pope by them both, as an acknowledgment, that they held both the Indies in fee from him. Iuliusk 1.122 the se∣cond gaue to Ferd••nand King of Spaine, the King∣dome of Naples, in feudum perpetuum▪ in a perpetu∣all

fee, but so that Ferdinand should sweare feoltie and performe homagium & vassallagium, homage and vassalage to him: And that also for the King∣domesl 1.123 of Sicily and Ierusalem he should pay yeerly to the Pope 8000 ducats of gould, and a white pal∣phrey, in recognitionem veri dominij regni Siciliae et Ierusalem, in acknowledgement that the Pope hath truely the dominion of Sicily and Ierusalem. And both Philip the second, and after him his sonne Philip the third, Anno 1599. did take, as Martam 1.124 tels vs, this oath of feoltie and homage. The Pope, saith Martan 1.125 gaue in feudum, in fee the King∣domes of Sardinia and Corsica, which in proprietie belongeth to him, but so that the Feudatarie do swear feoltie, and perform homage, et plenum vassallagium and full vassalage for the same, besides the pension of 200 markes of siluer, and finding of 100 furnished horse with men for warre; And Iames King of Ar∣ragon tooke this oath of homage, and after him Fer∣dinand, and others. Of the Kingdome of France, that it is held of the Pope, Boniface the eight boa∣steth, who writo 1.126 to Philip the French King, Necesse esse pontificem vtì dominum regni sui vene∣rari ac colere, that he must of necessitie acknow∣ledge and worship the Pope as his Lord. And Marta saith,p 1.127 Recognoscitur a Romana Ecclesia, the Kingdome of France is held of the Church of Rome. And at the time of the annointing their Kings, the Archbishop of Rhemes saith, that he giues the Kingdome, by the authoritie which Pope Hor∣misda gaue to Remigius: And then heq 1.128 ads diuerse reasons, That the Pope hath supremam potentiam, et

iurisdictionem in regno Franciae, the supream pow∣er and iurisdiction in the Kingdome of France. And Steuchus speaking both of France and Spaine, saith,r 1.129 They honour, yea adore the Romane Church as a Queene, pensionibus persolutis, paying their pensions and tribute vnto her: and the pension in France was the annuall payment of a penie for euerie house therein, as Popes 1.130 Gregory the se∣uenth declares, who expresly demaunded the same. Of the Kingdome of England, they are vainely confident, that it was sempert 1.131 beneficiarium & tributarium Romano pontifici, euer held in fee of the Pope, and payd tribute vnto him. King Inau 1.132 payd yeerely for it a penie for euerie house King Offa confirmed the same Anno 740. The like did Adel∣phus Anno 847. And the Pope had alwaies in Eng∣land his gatherers of this tribute, of whom the last was Polydore Virgill. Of Henry the second, they braggex 1.133 that he acknowledged the Pope to be his temporall Lord, himselfe to be the Popes feudatarie, and his Kingdome the Popes patrimonie. And of King Iohn they neuer cease to boast, that he resig∣nedy 1.134 the Kingdomes of England and Ireland to the Pope, and tookez 1.135 them in fee of him againe for the annuall pension of 1000 markes, as appeares by his Charter sealed with Gould. Thus said Popea 1.136 Innocent the third, and the bull or authenticall Charter hereof, is yet, as they boastb 1.137, extant in

the Vaticane. That by this meanes, the Pope hath directc 1.138 dominion in those Kingdomes, and that both King Iohn and his successors are maded 1.139 feu∣dataries and vassals to the Pope, as the Pope him∣selfe in a boasting maner, saide 1.140, vassallus noster est rex Angliae, the King of England is our vassall. Of the Kingdome of Denmarke, as being tributarie to the Romane Church, Pope Alexanderf 1.141 the second, warned Sueuus their King to pay the accusto∣med rents or tribute for the Kingdome. The King∣domes of Croatia and Dalmatia, saith Steuchusg 1.142 are the Popes, and the King is to pay yeerely 200 By∣zantines as a trybute for the same, and to sweare fe∣oltie to the Pope. That the Kingdome of Bohemia, is tributarie to the Pope, Gregory the seuenth boasteth, who saith,h 1.143 It payd vnto him a trybute of a 100 markes of siluer. The Kingdomes of Suetia and Norwey, saith Steuchusi 1.144, pay trybute to the Church of Rome, and euerie house in Suetia paies yeerely a penie to the Pope. The King of Hungaria, saith Martak 1.145, declares that he takes and holds his Crowne of the Pope, and Anno 1280. he entred an obligation, to pay yeerely 100 markes of siluer, as a tribute for the same. Now all these, besides some other Kingdomes, to the number of twentie and seuen, Martal 1.146 particularly recites, and tels vs, that they are recorded in the Registrie of the Romane Court or Exchequer, as Kingdomes feudatarie and tributarie to the Pope. Thus are all Emperours, Kings, and Princes, made to hold their Crownes, Kingdomes, and possessions, of the Pope, as from the supreame, direct, temporall Monarche of

them all. To him they must be subiects, feudata∣ries, homagers, and very vassals. The Popes, saith Steuchus,m 1.147 tanquam eorum domini, as their Lords, doe command kings throughout the world as their subiects. The Emperour, saith Carerius,n 1.148 is the Popes Minister, or Seruant: and Martao 1.149 addes, That it is the forme of the Emperors Coronation, that he doth sweare se seruiturum papae, that he will serue the Pope; yea both their doing of homage vnto him, and receiuing vnction from him, doth wit∣nesse this; seeing as Martap 1.150 saith, Homage is max∣imum subiectionis signum, the greatest token of subiection and seruice; And againe,q 1.151 Reges qui vnguntur ab Ecclesia, sunt vassalli ipsius, those kings which are annoynted by the Church are made her vassals; that is in effect, the Pope annoynts no kings, but he thereby sets a marke vpon them that they are his vassals.

Now seeing they are become the Popes ser∣uants, and tenants, it is worthy remembring, first, in what tenure they hold their Kingdomes, and possessions from him. Secondly, what seruice they are to performe to this their Lord. And lastly, what account this land-Lord makes of his tenants, and seruants. Their tenure is of all most base; for howsoeuer in words, the Pope giues them fee-simple, or fee-tayle, or any kind of free-hold, they are in verie trueth no other, but meere Tenants at will, to the Pope, so that he at his pleasure may take their Crownes, Kingdomes, and possessions from them, and giue the same to whomsoeuer hee will. The Church, saith Steuchus,r 1.152 suffers Kings

to raigne, modò dominam reginam{que} agnoscant, so that they acknowledge the Pope to be their land-Lord. If they once refuse this, they forfeit all their estates, As by the exampless 1.153 of Henry the fourth, Otho the fourth, Friderike the second, and diuerse others is euident. The Pope, saith Martat 1.154, is Lord of the Empire (and so of other kingdomes) quia transfert illud ad libitum, because he trans∣fers it at his owne pleasure and giues it vnto whom he will, as we haue proued. Popes haue giuen, saith Careriusu 1.155, and Thomas Boziusx 1.156, great Em∣pires and Kingdomes, to those who had formerly no right at all vnto them, taking them away from those to whom by right they did belong, though they deme∣rited nothing, but were wise, industrius, pious, and Catholike kings, such as had done nothing, or gi∣uen no cause at all, why they should haue beene depriued; whereof there are diuerse illustrious ex∣amples. Placuit Gregorio,* 1.157 It pleased Gregory the tenth to take the Eastern Empire from Baldwine the second, who was the rightfull Lord thereof, and giue it to Michael Paleologus, who had no right at all to the same. When Richardy 1.158 Duke of Cornewall, and Alphonsus King of Castile, were chosen to the Em∣pire though the Empire in right belonged to the one of those two, yet placuit Gregorio, it was the Popes pleasure to admit neither of them both; and so Ro∣dulph of the House of Austria was then created Em∣perour, Alphonsus in vaine gainsaying the same. And by whatz 1.159 other authoritie or power did Alexander the sixth giue to Ferdinand king of Arragon, and to his heires and successors, the Ilands of the new found

world? (that is, the West Indies.) Truely by none at all, but for this, that Christ gaue vnto the Pope his Vicar iura vtriusque Imperii, the rights both of the celestiall and terrestriall Empire, and so he might at his own will dispose them to whom he pleased. To these Scioppius ads one more, Spaine, saith he* 1.160, doth hold the kingdome of Nauar at this day, nullo alio titulo, nisi quia pontifici sic visum fuerat, by no other title but because, it is the Popes pleasure that he shall haue it.

As their tenure, so their seruice which they must performe to this their Landlord, is most base, most vnsutable to Imperiall Maiestie; Nor doe I meane that seruice which Marta saith,a 1.161 That the Em∣peror swears se seruiturū Papae pro subdiacono, that the will serue the Pope, for a subdeacon, that is, serue him when he saith Masse with the Challice, and other things; in regard of which seruice Duran∣dus saithb 1.162 That the Emperor being made a Canon of the Romane Church, debet ordinem subdiacona∣tus habere, must enter into the order of Subdea∣con; though this be by othersc 1.163 denyed. But the seruice which I meane, is, that the Emperor like a groome of the stable must holdd 1.164 the Popes stirrop, and leade his horse; So Pipinee 1.165 did to Pope Stephen, Fredericke to Pope Hadrian 3. If moref 1.166 Kings be present; then the more worthy King must lead the Popes horse on the right side, and the other on the left. If his Holynes be not pleased to ride, then foureg 1.167 of the greatest kings (euen the Emperour for one, if he be there) must beare the Popes chaire, and the Pope sitting therein, on their shoul∣ders.

At his feast, the Emperoura 1.168 or greatest king must bring water to wash the Popes hands, they must carryb 1.169 the first dish of meat and set it on his table. At his coronationc 1.170 two Cardinall Deacons, must hold the two sides of his Pluuiale (or loose vpper-garment) and the Emperour, or in his absence, two of the chiefest kings, must hold vp the taile thereof. If they happen to offend the Pope, they must dance attendance bare-footed at the Popes gates, as did Henryd 1.171 the 4. the Emperor, and that for diuers dayes, and in a colde season; or they must be whip∣ped on their naked body with roddese 1.172 as was Hen∣ry 2. of Engl: or suffer the Pope to trample on their neckes as Alexander 3. didf 1.173 on the necke of Fredericke Barbarossa; not without blasphemy also abusing that Scripture for iustifying his proud insulting ouer the Emperor, Thou shalt tread vpon the Adder and the Basiliske.

And yet that which in the third place I propo∣sed, to wit, the account which they make of kings, and all secular persons, farre surmounteth all these indignities, and to men of heroicall spirits, cannot chuse but be more grieuous and insupportable then all the rest. Omitting all their other opprobrious & reuiling speeches (which are innumerable) heare but the words of two of their late reuilers rather then writers. The former is Becanus, who callingg 1.174 the Pope a Shepheard, and Kings and Emperors doggesh 1.175 or Curres of this Shepheard, and spor∣ting himself with these titles, saith, Igitur hi Canes, therefore if these Dogges be watchfull and tru∣sty they must be ready at the Shepheards hand; but

if they be lazy, mad or troublesome, the Shepheard must presently remoue them, and put them from their office. This doth reason teach, this doth the Councell of Lateran decree. Againe, Christian kings are sheepe, are rammes, are wolues, and are dogges. Whence it is that the Pope carrieth himselfe in a di∣uers manner towards them. As they are sheepe, if they be scabby, he may put them out of the fold: as they are rammes, if they be troublesome, and push with their hornes, he may may shut them vp: As they are Wolues, he may driue them away; Quate∣nus Canes, as they are dogs, hee may put them from their office, if they be defectiue therein: and some of these, he doth by excommunication, some by depositiō. So Becanus.

The other is Gasp. Scioppius, whose words are so contumelious, euen in the highest degree, that one may iustly wonder that any of their Catholikes, but especially their Catholike Kings, can patiently digest them. The Church saith hea 1.176, is mandra iu∣mentorum, siue a sinorum, a great fold of beasts or Asses; some are packe Assesb 1.177, some dosse Asses, and others burden Asses. And then telling, cuius∣modic 1.178 Asini sumus nos Catholici, what manner of Asses, himselfe, and other Catholikes are; We, saith hed 1.179, must be beasts which haue vnderstan∣ding and reason to obey Bishops with all humility and patience; for theye 1.180 are the Men, they the Mu∣liters, and Asse-driuers, they must yoake, bridle, and saddle vs, put halters about our necks, load and driue vs; for othersf 1.181, they are like to beasts, but tame and obedient beasts, such as must doe what they are com∣manded:

for a gooda 1.182 and vnderstanding Asse, is hee, that heareth and followeth the direction and com∣mand of the Muliter. Further yet hee addes con∣cerning Kings, that Regesb 1.183 Catholici sunt Asini cum tintinnabulis; Catholicke Kings are Asses with belles about their neckes, as being the fore∣asses, which leadec 1.184 the way to other inferiour As∣ses. And particularly for Charles the great, whom he much commends, he saithd 1.185, that Charles was a farre greater and wiser Asse, then those Kings who cast off the Popes yoake; for Charles being tantus Asinus, so great an Asse, cryed (or rather brayed) out with a loud voyce, vniuersae Asinorum mandrae, to the whole folde of Asses, that is, to the whole Church, in this manner; For the memory of Saint Pe∣ter, let vs honour the Romane Church, and though the yoake which the Pope imposeth be such as we can scarcely beare, yet let vs with deuotion endure the same. Ex quibus verbis, saith Scioppius, ve∣rum Issachar agnoscas, de quo Genes. chap. 49. Issachar asinus fortis. By these words of Charles, you may see that he was a verie right Issachar, of whom it is said, Issachar is a strong asse. Is not this now think you, a fine peece of Catholike Di∣uinitie, to account and call the whole Catholike Church a fould of asses, all Catholike Kings asses with bels, all other lay persons, asses without bels; none but Bishops to be Men and Muliters, and the Pope the chiefe Muliter and driuer of all the Asses. So shall the man be honoured, whom the Pope will honour. The more zealous and deuout one is in obeying him, and embracing his do∣ctrine,

the greater Asse they account and call him. Thus haue they not onely stript Emperours and Kings of their Royalties and Imperiall rights, but of their goods, lands, and possessions, yea of their honours also; and in the end, for suffring all these indignities at the Popes hand, they account them to be verie Asses.

Now though by this, they doe euidently de∣monstrate the Donation of Constantine, of which we haue hitherto entreated, to be of no force at all, seeing neither he, nor Pipin, nor Charles, nor any other could giue ought to the Pope; and ther∣fore all the claime which they pretend, to any kingdomes, territories, or possessions, by such Do∣nations are but a meere mockage of the World; yet because they doe hereby chalenge an higher, a better, and far more ample title, to all that is sub∣posed by those Emperours to haue been giuen, euen such, that in stead of praysing their munifi∣cence, for that which they gaue, imputes open in∣iustice, tyrannie, and sacriledge to them, for that they gaue not all; let me entreat a litle of this point also, and cleere the honour not only of Con∣stantine, but of all other Kings and Princes, (for this concernes them all) whom by this doctrine they make meere intruders and vsurpers of what∣soeuer they doe not as tenants at will, hold of the Pope. A large argument I confesse, and which would require whole volumes, but purposing summa sequi fastigia rerum, I will only speake at this time of these three points. First, whether Christ as Mediator and Redeemer of mankind, had

such a soueraigne and direct temporall Monarchy, as for his vicares they now claime from him; which is indeed the first and the maine foundation of their papall Monarchy. Secondly, Whether Christ left and committed any such temporall Monarchy to Peter, which is their second foundation. Thirdly, Whether this Monarchicall Empire now claymed for the Pope, be not condemned by the iudgement of holy and learned men in all ages and successions of the Church.

CHAP. II.

That Christ had no such Temporall Monarchy, as is now claymed for the Pope.

FOr the first, whether Christ was such a Temporall King or no, we must consider, that there is a threefold Kingdome of Christ mentioned & taught in the ho∣ly Scripture. The first is his king∣dome of Power or Excellencie, whereby he being God, is the supreame Lord of all things; for The eartha 1.186 is the Lords and all that is therein. Con∣cerning which Kingdome, foure things are cleare and certaine. First, this Kingdome belongs to Christ neither by vertue of his death, nor of his resurrection, but by reason of the inseparable vnion of the manhood to the Godhead in Christ, by which he being that one person, which is both God and man, from the verie first instant of his conception

that man being verie God, hath the same power and Kingdome with God. And as himselfe saithb 1.187 I and my Father are one, so is this Kingdome of God and Christs, both one. Of this Kingdome of Christ, are those words to be vnderstood, Allc 1.188 power is giuen to me, both in heauen, and in earth: And that, Hed 1.189 hath made him heire of all things; And that, T••e Fathere 1.190 hath giuen all things into his hands; And againe, Omniaf 1.191 tua mea sunt, all that is thine, belongs also to me, and is mine.

Secondly, this Kingdome of Christ, is Incom∣municable vnto any meere creature whatsoeuer, for it is grounded on the Infinitie of Gods power, who as by his infinite power, he made all things of no∣thing, so by the same infinite power, he ruleth, or∣dereth, and disposeth of all things. And because no creature is capable of that Infinitie of power, neither is any, capable of that vniuersall King∣dome of Excellencie, whith ariseth from the Infi∣nitie of diuine power. And as Infinitie of nature cannot be transferred vnto any creature, so nei∣ther can Infinitie of power be giuen or transfer∣red vnto it, but this is, and resides onely in that Infinite Essence of God, nor can it agree to any, but to that person, which is truly God.

Thirdly, this supereminent and vniuersall King∣dome of Christ, doth neither abolish, nor hinder, but establish and ratifie all other particular and secular kingdomes. For as it was said,g 1.192 before Christs incarnation, to Nebuchadnezer; The God of hea∣uen hath giuen thee a kingdome, so Christ also after his incarnation, both approues and confirmes the

kingdome of Cesar, saying,h 1.193 Giue vnto Cesar, the things that are Cesars.

Fourthly, this kingdome of Christ is not tempo∣rall or secular, but farre more eminent then any, yea then all secular kingdomes in the whole world. Tem∣porall kingdomes are temporall, and mutable; this eternall, and immutable: they administred by tem∣porall persons, by temporall meanes, by temporall counsels: by temporall lawes, by temporall wea∣pons, by temporall punishments: This kingdome is administred by the onely eternall God, by his eternall, omnipotent, and immutable will, wis∣dome, counsell, and prouidence; either with meanes, or without meanes, or contrarie to meanes, as it seemeth best to him; administred also, so vnresistably, that nothing can resist the power of this kingdome, for nothing can come to passe without the prouidence and will of God, eitheri 1.194 powerfully doing it himselfe, or willingly permitting it to be done.

The second kingdome of Christ is of Grace; and the third is of Glory: Or if any like to call them both but one kingdome, it is not amisse; that kingdome of Glory being inchoate by Grace in this life, which shall be perfected both in grace and glory in the life to come. Of the former, Wherby Christ rules by faith and grace in the hearts of all his elect, euer since the world beganne, is that ment, Psal. 2.k 1.195 I am appointed a king vpon his holy mountaine Sion; And that of Zachary,l 1.196 Beholde the king commeth, and that in Ieremy,m 1.197 I will raise vp to Dauid, a righteous Branch, and he shall be

a king; And that in Ezechieln 1.198 I will make them one people, and one king shall rule ouer them; And that of our Sauiour,o 1.199 Seeke ye first the kingdome of God and the righteousnes thereof; Thep 1.200 king∣dome of God is come vnto you, and is inq 1.201 you: which is compared to seeder 1.202 sowne in good ground, to a graines 1.203 of mustard seed, to leauent 1.204, and a number such like in the Gospel.

Of the other which is his kingdome of Glory, are clearely to be vnderstood those texts of Scrip∣ture, Lordu 1.205 remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome. It isx 1.206 your Fathers will, to giue you the Kingdome. Theyy 1.207 shall sit with Abraham, Isaack and Iacob in the Kingdome of God. The vn∣righteousz 1.208 shall not inherite the kingdome of God. Bya 1.209 this meanes an entrance shall be ministred vn∣to you, into the euerlasting kingdome of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ. In all which, and many the like, is meant that glorious kingdome of Christ, whereby himselfe now, and euer since his ascensi∣on, is in perfect and endlesse felicitie, both of body and soule, subiect to no infirmitie of body, or griefe of minde, as before he was; of which most blessed kingdome, all the children of God are euen now fellow-heiresb 1.210 with Christ, and shall▪ in their due time, be madec 1.211 actuall partakers and possessors of that heauenly inheritance.

Of both these Kingdomes there may two things be obserued. The former, that they are in a speciall manner called the kingdomes of Christ. For though they be the kingdomes also of the Father, and the blessed Spirit, because Faith* 1.212 and

Grace are wrought in the hearts of Gods chil∣dren by his Spirit: and, God giueth both graced 1.213 and glory; yet because the holy Spirit worketh that grace, and the Father giueth this Kingdome, for the mediation and merite 1.214 of Christ, therefore are they by a certaine p••erogatiue, saide to bee Christs, for that he purchased and merited by the infinite and inestimable price of his blood, and bloody death, (which was sufficient to haue ran∣somed and freed all,) that both Grace and Glory should be giuen to whomsoeuer himselfe would; and that is to All and Onely to the beleeuers in him, to All and Onely the electf 1.215 in Christ.

The other is, that neither of these kingdomes is, or can, with any colour of reason, be accounted a tempo∣rall or terrene kingdome. Both of them in their nature spirituall: The former is wrought by Gods Diuine Spirit, and in the Spirits of the Elect, and that by a spirituall manner of working; The la∣ter is for place, not terrene but celestiall; for time, not temporall, but eternall; and for condition, not subiect to any disturbance or change, as tempo∣rall kingdomes are; but setled in an vnchangeable state of most happy tranquillity.

Now seeing in the holy Scripture there is nei∣ther set downe nor mentioned any other kingdom of Christ, but one of these three, which wee haue now described; and seeing it is cleare and certaine, that none of these three is a temporall Kingdome, but the first, onely diuine, the second onely spiri∣tuall, the third onely celestiall; it remaines cleere and euident, that Christ Iesus neither euer was a

temporall King, such as are the secular Princes and Monarches here vpon earth; neither euer, either had such a Kingdome, or executed and perfor∣med the Offices of such a King. And it were easie to demonstrate (if it were worth the labour) that those Romanists who pretend Christ to haue had a temporall Kingdome, doe either ignorantly, (as Franc. Bozius) or Atheistically (as that Scurra Sci∣oppus,) or impiously, (as the rest) peruert the holy Scriptures to their owne vaine and phantasticall conceits.

Let vs heare our Sauiour himselfe witnessing this truth. When Pilate demanded of him, if hee were a King, he answeredf 1.216, My Kingdome is not of this world. He professeth himselfe to be in∣deed a King, and to haue a kingdome; a Kingdome of Excellency and power, as he is God; a Kingdome both of Grace and Glory, as he is the mediator be∣tween God and Man: but for any temporal and ter∣rene Kingdom, such as Pilate meant, he vtterly de∣nies that he was such a king, or had such a kingdom. And he giues a plaine reason thereof, for other∣wise, my seruants would surely fight: As if hee had said; Had God sent me to be a temporall King, I would haue come with temporall pompe, with a temporall guard, and temporall weapons to de∣fend my right, & reuenge my wrongs; & then nei∣ther my self nor my seruants wold put vp all these indignities: but because my kingdom is not terrene, because I come to serue others & not to be serued with such Princely seruice, by this my carriage O Pilate, thou maist know, that my Kingdome is not

of this world, not a temporall or terrene kingdome.

His facts declare the same, when the Iewesg 1.217 had taken him to make him a temporall king, hee fled away, refusing such a Kingdome, euen when it was offered vnto him. When they came, desiringh 1.218 him to diuide the inheritance betweene two brethren, he refused to doe it, saying, Man who made mee a Iudge betweene you? As if he had said, the ordering of such temporall affaires, belongs to temporall Kings and their subordinate Iudges or Officers, God hath giuen that authority to them; Seeing I neither by Gods appointment, nor by delegati∣on from Cesar, haue that temporall authority, it belongs not to me to intermeddle with those tem∣porall iudgements. When the Publicanes came and demaunded,i 1.219 An non soluit, Doth not your Master pay (that is, vse to pay) tribute to Cesar? Peter answered, yes, he vseth so to doe: by that his vsing to pay tribute acknowledging himselfe, a subiect to Cesar: euen as at the time of his birth, his name was, as one of the subiects of Cesar, and Citizens of Rome, recordedk 1.220 in their censuall bookes. And though Christ, as himself teachethl 1.221, being the Son of God, to whom all Kingdomes doe belong, might by beeing the naturall Sonne of God, haue pleaded a freedome and immunity from paying tribute in any kingdom, yet seeing withal he was the Son of Dauid, he willingly payed tribute to Cesar, as being in respect of his manhood and humane birth, a subiect of the Empire and of Ce∣sar: Yea, Card. Caietanem 1.222, and after him Luc. Burgensisn 1.223 doe teach that Christ payed tribute

not onely de facto, but de debito. For seeing, say they, Christ said not, ne scandalizentur, but, ne scan∣dalizemus, lest we giue an offence vnto them; if Christ (who had taken vpon him that state of humility, & who was not yet known to the world to be God) had denyed tribute vnto Cesar, Actiui scandali rationem habuisset, he had giuen offence vnto them, causing them to thinke that he had con∣temned the Law of God. To which purpose Ierome saitho 1.224, Christ as being the Kings sonne, was not bound to pay tribute, but in that he took vpon him the humilitie of our nature, debuit adimplere omnē iusti∣tiam, he was bound to fulfill all iustice; one part of which, was subiection and paying tribute to Cesar. So Christ both by his words, and acti∣ons, witnessed his kingdome not to haue beene temporall, while he was here vpon earth, neither did he challēge, or euer vse the authority of a tem∣porall king, or hinder, much lesse abolish and take a∣way, as Scioppiusp 1.225 saith he did, those kingdomes; but establishing that authority which God had giuen to them, for all such temporall matters, hee carried himselfe as a subiect to temporall Kings, submitting himselfe to death, euen to a most shamefull death, vpon the iudgement of Pilate, the Emperors deputy in Iurie, whom he acknow∣ledgethq 1.226 to haue had power ouer him from God, to iudge him.

To these may be adioined, the consenting testi∣monies of S^t. Austenr 1.227 S. Cyrills 1.228, S^t. Am∣broset 1.229, S^t. Ieromeu 1.230, S^t. Chrysostomex 1.231,

S^t. Hillariet 1.232, S^t. Epiphaniusu 1.233, of Egesippusx 1.234, Eusebiusy 1.235, Bedez 1.236, Bernarda 1.237, and many o∣thers, who not onely deny Christs kingdome to haue been terrene and temporall, but explaining how that prophesie in Ieremie, That none of Ieconi∣as posteritie, (of which they thought Christ to be) should sit vpon the throne, or be a King, how this I say is not repugnant to that saying of the Angell, Gabriel, Luke 1. 32. God shall giue vnto him the throne of his father Dauid; they answer that these two are not contrary, seeing Ieremy speakes of a temporall kingdome, and such Christ had not: and Gabriell of a spirituall and eternall kingdome, and such Christ indeed had. But omitting all the rest, I will adde three or foure testimonies of their owne learned writers testifying this.

The first is Card. Bellarm. who thus writesb 1.238, Christ as he was man, while he liued vpon earth, nei∣ther had, nor would accept any temporall dominion, neitherc 1.239 did hee euer exercise any such temporall power; and therefore it had beene in vaine for him to haue had it, seeing that power is in vaine which is ne∣uer brought into act. And whereas some pretend, that when Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he did therin vse his kingly, tem∣poral, and secular power; the Card. rightly shewesd 1.240 that Christ did that, not by any secular or kingly power, but as a Prophet, and by prophetical authority, such as Phinies vsed when he killed Zimbri, & Cos∣bi: and Elias when he killed the Priests of Baal. The same Card. ads, Thate 1.241 such a temporall kingdome & secular power, was neither necessary nor expedient for Christ, but altogether superfluous & vnprofitable

for him. Againe, That Christ, saith hef 1.242, had an vniuersall kingdome of power, as hee was God, a spirituall kingdome of grace, and a third which is an eternall kingdome of glorie, I do reade; but that he had a fourth kingdome which is properly temporall, such as other Kings here vpon earth haue, I find not either in the Scriptures, or in the Fathers: Nay, I esteeme such a kingdome to be contrarie to the pouer∣tie of Christ, mentioned in the Scriptures, and to sa∣uor of the error of the Iewes, & Heretikes. Againg 1.243 I haue read the books of the Fathers, with what dili∣gence I could, and I haue often read them to denie Christ to haue had a temporall or terrene kingdome, but I haue no where read them to affirme that he had such a kingdome, Thus Bellarmine.

The next is Cornelius Iansenius, one of their learnedest and best expositors of the Gospell. The kingdome of Christ (saith he)h 1.244 is called the throne or kingdome of Dauid, not for that it is tem∣porall, sensible, or terrene, but because it was figured by the kingdome of Dauid.

The third is Adam Sasbout, who vpon those words which they* 1.245 so often wrest, God shall giue vnto him the seate and kingdome of Dauid, thus and verie rightly writethi 1.246, The Iewes vnderstand this text of a temporall kingdome of the Messias, such as other kings haue here vpon earth, whereas the Scrip∣tures are most euident, which witnesse that Christs kingdome shall not be such: but Christ is said to sit vpon Dauids throne, because he ruleth for euer in the Church, and in the faithfull people, of which Church the kingdome of Dauid was a type.

The fourth is Thomas Waldensis, who in a

whole Chapterk 1.247 at large and effectually by ma∣ny Fathers, and reasons, proues that Christs king∣dome is not temporall. Christ (saith he) tooke away all suspition from Pilate, when he answered negatiuely touching a temporall kingdome, saying, My kingdome is not of this world, that is, it is not humane, not tem∣porall, but it is farre greater, and more excellent. Again, All with one accord write that secular princes need not feare the kingdome of Christ, seeing it is not of this world. And then he adds, finaliter definimus, we determine and conclude finally, that Christ had no right to the kingdome of Israell, who as God had an vniuersall right to all kingdomes in the world.

To all which may be adioyned that which be∣ing taken out of Seduliusl 1.248, the whole Romane Church approues and singes as an holy Antheme in their publike lyturgie: Non eripit mortalia, qui regna dat caelestia, Christ giues an heauenly, he doth not take away earthly kingdomes, that is, as Bellarminem 1.249 rightly teacheth, No secular king by becōming a Christian looseth his right to his earthly, but he getts a new right to an heauenly kingdome.

Now to this vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers, and the best of their latter Diuines, if we should oppose that violent and indeed atheisticall wresting of the sacred Scriptures, for intitling Christ to a secular and temporall kingdome, vsed by the Popes Proctors and Parasites, it would much confirme any man in this truth. For who can with patience heare them teach, Christin 1.250 reg∣num tollit omnia alia regua, Christs kingdom (and that is the Popeso 1.251 in Christs right) takes away all other kingdomes in the world: For he is pro∣perly

no king that hath any man superior vnto him. Or that, Christ hathp 1.252 euacuated and made void all principalitie & power, to wit, all besides the Popes. Or that, I willq 1.253 ouerthrow, saith the Prophet, the strength of nations, that is to say, Delebo imperium Romanum, I will abolish the Romane Empire. Consider but the ground of this temporall king∣dome which they giue vnto Christ. That is, be∣cause Christr 1.254 by his death hath redeemed and bought to himselfe (and by consequent to the Popes 1.255 who is to take possession of all as Christs De∣putie) all temporall kingdomes in the world. To which purpose, hauing wrested th••se words of the Apostle,t 1.256 he hath taken the hand-writing that was against vs and fastned it to the Crosse, he adds, Hicu 1.257 perspicuum est, It is cleere by this, that Christ by the title of Redemption hath obteyned not onely spirituall, but secular power, according as it is said, Thou hast put all things vnder his feet, not onely the soules, but the goods and estates of all men; all are subiected and brought vnto the dominion of Christ, & by him giuen to his vice-royx 1.258 the Pope, who in his right must haue the possessiony 1.259 of them all. And againe, Christz 1.260 by shedding his blood, redeemed or bought all the kingdomes of the world of the diuel, to whom Adam by his sinne had sold them, And a thousand such like.

Truely, such diuinitie doth beseeme none but such as Scioppius, who Atheistically peruerts eue∣rie

text of Scripture that he lights vpon. That Adam, and in him all mankind, by their voluntarie transgression, forfeited vnto God their right both to the celestiall kingdome, and to all the blessings of this life, which God had promised vnto them; and so made themselues by the iust iudgement of God, seruants both to sinne and satan: That Christ to redeeme mankind out of this miserable serui∣tude, payd vnto God that inestimable price of his owne bloodie death and passion; that by his most pretious death on the Crosse, he purchased and merited at Gods hands, first, remission of sinnes, and then both grace in this life, and an eternall Kingdome in the life to come for all his elect; These, the Scriptures euidently teach, the Fathers professe, and the whole Church of God euer be∣leeued. But that Adam sold either the kingdomes of earth or of heauen to the diuel, or that Christ payd any price to the diuel, to redeeme either the one kingdome or the other at his hands (who was in truth nothing else, but the Iaylour or executio∣ner of Gods wrath,) or that Christ bought at all any temporall kingdome, either of God or the diuel, to bestow it on the Pope, is such diuinitie as is fit to be preached onely to a fold of Asses, and preached onely by him, who professeth himselfe (and we enuy not that so iust a title should be gi∣uen vnto him) to be an Asse, and one of no small vnderstanding in that fold of Asses. Now seeing this, which is the best and fairest ground or title that he could find either for Christs, or the Popes temporall kingdome, is prophane, blasphemous, and

Atheisticall, you may well thinke, that the rest of their building which relies on this, must needs be sutable vnto it; that is, not onely impious and blasphemous, but such as sets open a wide gappe to Atheisme, and most contemptuous prophaning of the holy Scriptures, and the most Sacred mysteries thereof.

CHAP. III.

That Christ gaue no Temporall Monarchy to Peter, nor any of his Apostles, nor any of their Suc∣cessors.

THe second point which I pro∣posed, is, Whether any such di∣rect, temporall Monarchy of the world, was granted by Christ to S. Peter, and in him to the Pope, as his Successour. Now this is easily resolued by the former. For it is certaine, that not Peter, and then not the Pope (admitting him, which is certainly vntrue, to be Peters heire ex asse) could haue this by any right from Christ, vnlessea 1.261 this had belonged first to Christ himselfe, as he was man and me∣diatour betwixt God and man; For Peter and his Successours, representb 1.262 Christ vnto vs no other∣wise then as he was, dum hic inter homines viueret, whilst he liued here vpon earth. Christ himselfe saying,c 1.263 As my Father sent me, so send I you. Seeing then we haue proued both by Scriptures,

Fathers, and by the cleare confession of their best learned writers, that Christ had no temporall kingdome, nor was euer a temporall, but alwaies an eternall King of power, of grace, and glorie; it most certainly followeth, that he neither gaue, nor left, or committed to Peter, or any of Peters Successours, any temporall Kingdome, or coactiue power, but gaue vnto them onely a power of dire∣ction, whereby they might guide others to faith and sanctitie in this life, and to euerlasting glorie in the life to come.

Our Sauiour teacheth this fully, Math 20. and Luke 22. When Iames and Iohn dreaming of a temporall kingdome which Christ should haue, desiredd 1.264 and made the motion by meanes of their mother, to sit the one at the right, the other at the left hand in his Kingdome, That is, to haue tem∣porall authoritie, power, and dignitie, next vnto Christ himselfe; he correcting this their erronious, ambitious, and vnfitting desire, said to them, and to all his Apostles, and in them to all their Succes∣sours, The Kings of the Gentiles, dominantur cis haue secular and coactiue dominion ouer them, (that is, ouer the Gentiles and people subiect vnto their authoritie) and they that are great among them, exercise authoritie ouer them (compelling them to do what they command:) vos autem non sic, But it shall not be so with you; but whosoeuer will be great among you, let him be your minister and seruant; euen as the Sonne of man, came not to be ministred vnto, but to minister. In which words, as S. Bernarde 1.265 rightly obserues, is set

downe, forma Apostolica, the verie forme of the Apostolicall authoritie giuen vnto them and their successours by Christ, and what from Christ they ought to challenge. And first, our Sauiour de∣clares what he would not giue vnto them; to wit, not any temporall, ciuill, or coactiue authoritie, such as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised, and as they desired him to giue vnto them; and then, what he would giue vnto them, to wit, authoritie of Ecclesiasticall ministration, and seruice, which himselfe exercised.

That they desired secular, and coactiue autho∣ritie, such as is vsed in temporall kingdomes, and desired Christ to giue this vnto them, is euident by their owne words, Grant that we may sit (as secular Iudges and Magistrates) the one at thy right, the other at thy left hand (that is, in high dignitie and place, euen next to thy selfe) in thy Kingdome, which they thoughtf 1.266 should be a temporall Kingdome. Christ not onely checketh their ambition, and denies to grant this vnto them, but giues a manifest reason of his deniall thereof: The Kings of the Gentiles (those he names, because at that time there were no other Kings in the world) haue this temporall and coa∣ctiue dominion which you desire of me, and they, partly by themselues, partly by their deputies and subordinate officers, exercise the same. To giue this, belongs to them, and not to me. I haue it not my selfe, and therefore I cannot giue it to you, nor depute you vnto such rule. I came not to rule temporally, but to serue; and that which I, as your

Messias, and ruler of my Church, doe giue vnto you, is, to serue as my selfe serue, not to rule in temporall sort, as I doe not so rule. If you would haue this, you must seeke it of the Kings of the Gentiles; they onely at this time, haue this pow∣er vnder God, originally in themselues, they only are to depute others to haue it vnder them, and from them. But if Kings should thinke it conue∣nient to conferre this subordinate secular and co∣actiue authoritie vpon them, whether then they should accept it or no, of that our Sauiour speakes not one word. He onely denies that himselfe will grant that secular power, which they desired him to giue vnto them. But seeing our Sauiour doth not prohibit it, and the Church euer since Kings embraced Christianitie, hath allowed it, most religiousg 1.267 Kings granting it, most religious Bi∣shopsh 1.268 accepting and vsing it, and the whole Catholike Church in all ages euer since, approue∣ing both the giuing thereof by the one, and ac∣cepting of it by the other; yea approueing it, by the verie warrant of God himselfe, in the old

testamēt, where secular power was in diuersi 1.269 ioy∣ned vnto spirituall: it is not to be doubted, but that it is consonant both to the will of Christ, and the word of God; of both which there can neither be, nor be wished for, a better or more certaine declaration in this cause, not determined by Christ, then is the vniforme iudgement of the whole Catholike Church and that in all ages.

It is true I confesse that learned men, both on our side, and theirsk 1.270, expound the words of Christ in such such, as if Christ had denyed not sim∣ply dominion, but onely tyrannicall and cruell domi∣nion: which they collect from the compound verbes vsed by Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which import (as they suppose) vniust, cruell, and tyranni∣call gouerning. That Christ condemnes such cruelty and tyranny in all, and especially in his A∣postles, there is no doubt; but that hee meant to forbid it in these words, there is no likelihood at all, nor no circumstance to enforce, that reason, drawne from the compound verbes, sauouring of gramaticall subtility, but neither of logicall, nor theologicall soliditie. First, though these com∣pound verbes doe signifie sometimes tyrannicall dominion, yet neither doe they so alway, (for Iosh. 15. v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth simply preuailing by force without either iniustice or tyrany:) And that in this place, they ought not to be taken in that signification, is euident, by all as I suppose that haue translated the Text in the Bible. In the Sy∣riack, in Arius Montanus, in Isiod. Clarius, in Casta∣lio, in the French, in the Italian, in the Spanish, in

the English, in S. Ierome, the former word is con∣stantly translated, by Dominari, which is to haue dominion and rule, and the latter, by exercising authority; not one translating them, tyrannicè domi∣nari, or saeuam ac crudelem authoritatem exercere: and which against those, with whom we deale, is of most force, their vulgar Latine edition which they holdl 1.271 to be authenticall, and from which they may nullo praetextu, by no colour depart; This, I say, hath simply dominantur eorum & potestatem exercent, rightly deliuering the sence of the words, though with some incongruitym 1.272 of Latine, and against Grammar.

Againe our Sauiour in S. Luke* 1.273, vseth the simple verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which out of question, signifi∣eth, dominantur. Whereby it is certaine, that the compound verbe in S. Matthew, doth signifie the same also: or if it doe not, yet his words in Saint Luke simply denie dominion to bee giuen vnto them. The Kings of the Gentiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 haue do∣minion, to wit, ciuill, coactiue, and temporall, and vse it; but with you it shall not be so: not by any grant from me.

Lastly, had our Sauiour denyed onely tyranni∣call and cruell dominion vnto them, hee had not fitly reproued them at this time, nor answered their request, made vnto him. For they would easily haue replyed, why, we seeke not any cruell nor tyrannicall kinde of dominion; all that we de∣sire, is to be eminēt in secular & coactiue authority and power, in thy temporall and earthly king∣dome. Seeing then it is certaine, that Christ de∣nied

to grant that which they desired, and their desire was not of tyranny, but of temporall domini∣on, it is not to bee doubted, but our Sauiour de∣nyed that he would grant or giue vnto them any secular, ciuill or coactiue authority at all, either milde or tyrannicall.

Now seeing Christ denyed to giue any secular power at all to any of his Apostles, or to their suc∣cessors, à fortiori he must needs deny to giue that which they now claime to the Pope, Regall, Mo∣narchicall, and supreme dominion, and that ouer all kings in the world, either to Peter or Iames, or any of all their successors. Our Sauiours words, are farre more emphaticall and forceable against this. The Kings of the Gentiles haue this dominion; If I should giue this vnto you, I should contrary to mine own precept, take from Cesar what belongs to Cesar. The Kings of the Gentiles haue this do∣minion; should I giue this vnto you, I should make all of you Kings, and not seruants; now I appoint you to be (as I my selfe am) seruants vnto your brethren, not kings ouer all your brethren, and least of all ouer all the world. S. Bernard very rightly applying this text to the Pope, who then carried himselfe like an Emperour, tels him, that Apostolicall ministration which is inioyned to Peter and all his successiors, is incompatible which Mo∣narchical dominion, which the Pope then vsurped, and which is now challenged. If, saith hen 1.274, you succeed in the Apostolicall vocation, you may not v∣surpe (Monarchicall) dominion, Planè ab alterutro prohiberis, you are certainely forbid the one of

these two. If you will haue them both, you shall lose them both. And to shew plainely that such inde∣pendant temporall dominion vsed by the Pope, cannot possibly bee claimed from Christ, nor bee iure diuino, he addes, Vt alia quacunque ratione, haec tibi vendices, certè non Apostolico iure, by what means soeuer you claime such dominion, it is cer∣taine, you cannot haue it by Apostolicall right. And if it be not Apostolicall, then is it certainely either humane (which they scorne,) or (which is the truth indeed) diabolicall. To the same pur∣pose doth their learned Lawyer Ant. Rosseluso 1.275 say Est impossibile quod in eodem subiecto sit totale sacer∣dotium, & Imperium saeculare. It is impossible, that the same man should bee both a full Bishop and withall a ciuill Emperour or supreame Monarch. And in another place, hee vndertakes in an whole Chapterp 1.276 to proue, Imperium temporalium, non esse in Sacerdotio, nec esse posse, that a supreame tem∣porall Empire, or dominion neither is, nor can be in a Bishop. The reason whereof is, that opposi∣tion which Christ hath made betweene them; the one, to be the Lord and ruler of all his bre∣thren, and therefore subiect or seruant to none, but onely to God; the other to be a seruant in perfor∣ming Ecclesiasticall ministration to all his bre∣thren, but specially to the Emperor; and therefore to be subiect to him, who is by God appointed to be the Lord of all his brethren.

Our Sauiour againe teacheth this, by that com∣mandement which he giues both to his Apostles and all others, and which himselfe obserued, Giue

q 1.277 vnto Cesar that which is Cesars. Now among other things due to Cesar, S. Paul by the direction of Christs owne Spirit, reckons obedience, saying, Letr 1.278 euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers, and that not for terror, or feare of punishment, but euen for conscience sake.

That, by the higher powers, the Apostle meant no other, but Cesar and secular Kings, is euident by that very Text, seeing of them the Apostle saith, That theys 1.279 beare the sword, which certainly none then did, but secular Princes; and that tributet 1.280 is paid vnto them, which was then paid vnto none, but only to Cesar, & secular kings: to whom euen Christu 1.281 himselfe not onely vsed to pay it, but Peter in whose house Christ was at that time, paid the same, it being exacted domatim, of euery housholder. S. Austenx 1.282 writes to Macedonius a temporall Gouernour, that the Apostle doth ter∣rifie wicked men not onely by the future punishments, but euen praesentibus vestris saecularibus iudiciis, by your present secular iudgements, when hee saith, Let euery soule he subiect to the higher powers. S. Ba∣sil more plainly to our purpose, The Apostle, saith hey 1.283 commands all to be subiect to the higher pow∣ers, potestatibus mundi, non spiritualibus, hee com∣mands this subiection to temporall and secular powers, hee speakes not here of spirituall powers; And this, saith Basil, the Apostle plainely declares, by that which followeth, of paying tribute vnto them. S. Chrysostomez 1.284, is more then abundant in de∣claring this to be spoken of secular kings, whom he often there calles Princes that doe imperare,

rule ouer their subiects, Magistrates who are here by the Apostle described veluti milites armati, as armed to take vengeance of euill doers, to whom honour, euen Imperiall honour (as he calsa 1.285 it) is due, and due by all other. For all, saith he, whether thou bee a Priest, or a Prophet, or an Apostle; siue quicunque alius sis, or whosoeuer else thou bee, euery one is commanded to obey these higher powers. The like might be shewed by Tertullianb 1.286, Ambrosec 1.287, and many others: but the confession of Pererius their Iesuite, may ease vs of this labour; who saithd 1.288 All the ancient Writers almost (he might haue left out almost) haue vnderstood Paul de potestate tantū saeculari, to speak only of secular power, & the Text of the Apostle doth of it selfe declare the same. So Pererius. Seeing then it is cleere that all the Apostles, and more specially Peter, (for this Epi∣stle of Paul was written to the whole Church of Rome, at that very timee 1.289, when Peter, as they teach, was Bishop therof) and then much more all Peters successors, are commanded by the Spirit of God, to be obedient to secular Kings and Prin∣ces; it is vndeniably consequent, that Christ did not giue a supreame temporall dominion either to Peter, or to any other Apostle, or to any of all their successors: for had he giuen that, then should not they haue beene commanded to obey other Kings, but all other both Kings and people should haue beene taught and commanded to obey e∣uen in all ciuill and temporall matters, Peter and Peters successors.

If notwithstanding all this euidence, any will

yet exempt either Peter or the Pope, or any other from this commandemēt of the Apostle, that may be iustlie replied vnto him, which S. Bernard saith,f 1.290 Si omnis anima, & vestra, If euery soule must be subiect, to secular powers, then must you also bee, who hath exempted you from this vniuersalitie? Si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere, if any attempt to except you, he indeuours to deceiue you.

But besides this of Bernard, I will oppose two other euident reasons: The former drawne from the scope and purpose of the Apostle in giuing this precept. Bellarmine, as also Pererius, do right∣ly obserue, that whereas Christiansg 1.291 in the A∣postles time were slandered to haue beene Nouatores, Innouaters of the state, subuerters of ciuill gouern∣ment, seditious and rebellious persons; the Apostles to cleere the Christian doctrine of theseh 1.292 calumnies, both in their Sermons and writings, did earnestly perswade obedience vnto Emperors, Kings and secu∣lar Magistrates. Now had Peter challenged, & the other Apostles and Christians abetted him in that claime, the supreame temporall Monarchie of the world, then could Christianity neuer haue beene cleared of that calumnie: nay it had beene no calumny at all, but a certaine truth; for seeing by the doctrine of Christians, Peter and his successors were for euer to haue the supreame temporall do∣minion ouer the whole world, all other king∣domes and Monarchies had beene quite subuer∣ted, all Emperors and Kings should by this haue become subiects, seruants, homagers and vassals to Peter and the Pope. He should haue beene their

temporall Lord, whom they ought to obey, their Landlord from whom they should haue taken and held all their possessions, and their supreame Mo∣narch from whom they must deriue all their tem∣porall authority. Thus had the Christian faith and doctrine, subuerted all other temporall King∣domes, to establish a new temporall Monarchy in the Pope alone. Seeing then the Apostles taught that accusation to be a most odious calumnie, be∣cause they, as Chrysostome saithi 1.293, taught that Christ by his Law non euertit politiam, sed melius in∣stituit, did not subuert any other ciuill state, com∣mon wealth or Empire, but bring them all to bet∣ter order, by embracing faith, & with it piety, and all godlinesse; it is hence most cleare, that Christ neither before, nor after his resurrection, erected that new-found temporall, Pontificall Monarchy, which as Scioppiusk 1.294 truely saith, ouerthrowes all other kingdomes and Empires in the whole world.

The other reason is this, that if Christ had meant to giue such a temporall Monarchy to Pe∣ter, he would no doubt haue furnished him with secular meanes, secular strength and power, first, to obtaine, and then to vphold and maintaine that Monarchy. Now the weapons of their warfare were not carnall, as the Apostle saithl 1.295, but spiri∣tuall, mighty to cast downe all the strong holds of Sa∣tan. Certainly they might if they had had Christs allowance, haue vsed their power to subuert King∣domes, and bring all to a temporall subiection vn∣der Peter. They could most easily haue subdued all the instruments of Satan, and all mortall men

who had opposed themselues to this Pontificall dominion. For who could haue resisted them, who with a word onely could smite their oppug∣ners with blindnesse, as Paul didm 1.296 Elimas, yea with present death, as Peter didn 1.297 Ananias & Sa∣phira? But because this power was giuen them, onely to confirme the Faith, and enlarge Christs Spirituall, but not their owne temporall kingdom; they onely vsed it for the furtherance of Christs glory, and neuer either did, or might vse it to set vp their owne secular dominion, and lift them∣selues aboue all Kings, and Princes. Nay, seeing the Apostles were faithfull in the house of God, and preached euerie part of that doctrine which Christ taught vnto them; S^t. Paul testifying of himselfe, which is also true in the rest, I haueo 1.298 kept nothing backe, but haue declared vnto you the whole Counsell of God: and none of them all, euer so much as once declared that Peter and Peters Successors, were to haue a temporall Monarchy ouer the whole world, and that all Kings must hold both their Crownes and Kingdomes from them; all to be tenants, homagers, and vassals vnto them: it may hence certainly be concluded, that this temporall Monarchy which they claime to Peter and the Pope, is no part of Gods counsell; and then without all doubt, it is no other but the verie counsell of the diuell.

CHAP. IIII.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by the iudgement of the Primitiue Church, and of generall Councels; as also by the Fathers, and learned writers, who liued till the 500. yeeres after Christ.

THe third point which herein I proposed, was, to shew that this direct temporall Monar∣chy which they claime to the Pope, with those conse∣quents & conclusions which depend on it, hath been con∣demned by the vniforme consent of holy Fathers, and learned writers in all ages of the Church. A worke in truth nothing so difficult to proue, as laborious to collect; and if I feared not to be too prolixe, I would make it cleare by the testimonies almost of all writers of account, in all the ages of the Church. But study∣ing breuitie, I will select some onely out of that heape which I had not without great labour col∣lected, by which may be conceiued what the iudgement hath beene of the rest in this point.

First, there are two generall considerations which may be here obserued. The one is the con∣senting iudgement of Popes, Bishops, Martyrs, and all▪ Christians of the Primitiue Church, so long as Emperours persecuted the Faith; that is,

vntill the Empire of Constantine. Had Christians belieued or knowne in those dayes, that the Pope was an higher temporall King then secular Empe∣rours, and that none of those Emperours had any lawfull authoritie to punish or put them to death, seeing they had no authoritie at all from their su∣preame temporall Monarch, the Pope, so to doe; why did not those Popes command Christians, (as they might lawfully haue done) to make resi∣stance by temporall force? why did they not (as being superiour Lords they lawfully might) who∣ly depriue those Emperours of all their authority which they so tyrannously abused against Christ? Specially considering that, as Bellarminea 1.299 tels vs, When Princes goe about to turne their people from the faith, omnium consensu possunt, & debent priuari suo dominio, by consent of all Romanists, they may and ought to be depriued of their Dominion; yeab 1.300 non licet Christianis tolerare, Christians may not then so must as tolerate them. At least, why did neither the Popes, nor any of all those Mar∣tyres, vse that iust Apologie for themselues, that none of those Emperours had any lawfull autho∣rity ouer them, seeing they had none deriued from the Pope? How were they not perfidious in Gods cause, by concealing that truth, which if they had taught, would haue quenched all persecutions? How were they not iniurious to Gods Church in suffering those tyrants, who had no lawfull autho∣ritie from their highest temporall Monarch, to murder and massacre the Saints of God? Nay, how can they be excused from being accessorie

to their owne deaths, when they vsed neither that temporall authoritie of the Pope, whereby they might iustly haue resisted; nor that iust defence of speech, whereby they might haue repressed all those tyrannies? For if any think, they had not at that time temporall power, and strength sufficient to haue made resistance, Tertullian plainely wit∣nesseth the contrarie. If (saith he)c 1.301 we Christi∣ans would be open enemies, should we want either number or power? Are not we moe then the Mauri, Marcomans, or Parthians? moe then any nation? we haue filled all places that you haue, your Cities, your Ilands, your Castles, your municipall Townes, your Tents, your Tribes, your Pallaces, your Senate, your Markets, onely we leaue to you the Idol Temples. Cui bello non idonei fuissemus? What warre were we not able to vndertake? But because both the Popes and all other Christians then knew, that they had no such lawfull authoritie to make resi∣stance to their Gouernors, they layd downe their neckes, and endured all tortures, euen death it self, vsing no other weapons, but teares and prayers: Against Emperours being their Lords, they had scutum, but not gladium. The Popes temporall sword and secular Monarchy which might easily haue resisted, and quenched all those persecutions, was not knowne or once dreamed of among any Christians in those first three ages of the Primi∣tiue Church.

The other generall consideration, is the con∣senting iudgement of holy generall Councels. I haue in an other Treatised 1.302 proued at large, that

besides the Sardican, and that vnder Mennas, there were held no more but eight, which are rightly to be counted and called Oecumenicall and lawfull Councels. All that followed that eight, which was held at Constantinople about the cause of Pho∣tius, either in the yeere 869, in the time of Ha∣drian the second; or in the yeere 879, in the time of Iohn the eight, and both of them in the time of Basilius, were in truth either not Oecumenicall, or if such, yet not lawfull generall Councels. Now by all those eight, which were only Oecu∣menicall Councels, the Popes temporall Mornar∣chy is clearly and certainly condemned. For all those were both assembled, gouerned, and dissolued by the authoritie of secular Emperours; all the Bishops in all those Councels, by their comming at the Emperours call and command; by their willing submission to Imperiall gouernment, when they were assembled; by their not departing, but with the Emperours leaue, and licence, did acknowledge and proclaime Emperours to be the onely supreame Lords, Gouernours, and temporal Monarches in the Church. All which points, be∣cause I haue fully in my other Treatise out of the Synodall Acts of euerie one of those Councels made cleare, I will not here repeat the same. Let me only now mention one testimonie out of that which they call the eight generall Councell. In ite 1.303 Basilius the Emperour writ thus to the whole Councell, and all the Bishops of the Councell approuedf 1.304 his writing, and saying: The gouern∣ment of the Ecclesiasticall Ship (that is, of the

Church) is by the diuine prouidence, nobis commissa giuen or committed vnto vs. An euidence that the whole Church belieued, and professed the Emperour, and not the Pope to be the supreame Monarch, Pilot, and Gouernour of the Church: an euidence also so certaine, that whereas Binius following Raderus the Iesuite, had in his former editiong 1.305 of the Councels, maliciously corrup∣ted these words, and turned Nobis into Vobis; quite contrary both to the Greeke Text, to the ancient reading, and the true sense of Basilius; Binius hath now in his last editions of the Councels, corrected that his errour, and rightly reades the words, as they are also in their Romane edition of the Councels, Nobis and not Vobis. So by the con∣senting Iudgment of all the Oecumenicall Coun∣cels, which as yet haue beene held, that is, of the whole Catholike Church, whensoeuer it spake in one voyce, this temporall Monarchy of the Pope is most cleerely condemned, and the soueraigne authority of secular Emperors aboue the Pope, is most cleerely demonstrated.

Heare now the softer voyce of the Church, speaking in those Fathers and learned Writers, who liued in the seuerall ages and successions thereof. For though this question of the Popes temporall Monarchy was not mooued in the Church till more then a 1000 yeeres after Christ, yet such is the force of Trueth, that euen before this controuersie arose, that Antichristian pride was by the ancient Fathers both condemned and refelled, though not in expresse maner (which, the

questiō being not then moued, they could not do) yet by many both certaine, cleare, and vndeniable consequents.

In the first age,* 1.306 after our Sauiour,i 1.307 the head of the whole Church, had once giuen that pre∣cept of obedience, Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars; S. Peterk 1.308 seconds him therein, com∣manding to honour the King and submit themselues to him, tanquā praecellenti, as being superiour to the rest. And S. Paull 1.309 explaines both who they are that must obey, and those are Euerie soul; (I thinke the Pope is one:) and to whom they must yeeld obedience, and those are, the Higher (secular) pow∣ers, who beare the sword, and receiue tribute. Igna∣tiusm 1.310 the next Bishop of Antioch after S. Peter, in one of those which theirn 1.311 own writers com∣mend for his true and genuine Epistles, saith, It be∣hooues all to honour the King, Nec enim Rege quis∣quam praestantior, for there is none (then certainly not the Pope) more eminent then the King, nor is any equall to him, in all things created. Which words being so pregnant against the Popes Soue∣raignety, are fouly corrupted and falsified (by whose hands you may easily coniecture) both in the Latine Edition of Ignatius at Paris Anno 1562 and in the Greeke also, of the same Edition. In both which, in steed of Rege, is read, Deo. But in the Bibl. patrum the words are, and that rightly, set forth as we haue cited them, none aboue the king. Iosephus* 1.312 shewes, that in his age there was an impious sect of the Pharisies, who were oppugners of regall authoritie, and who alone refused to sweare

fidelitie vnto the Emperour, cum tota gens Iudaeorum fidem suam iureiurando obligassent Regi & Caesari, whereas the whole nation of the Iewes did bind their fidelitie to Cesar by an oath. It is not to be doubted, but in the whole nation of the Iewes, there were many thousand Christiansp 1.313; who neither iustly could, nor would haue taken that oath to the Emperour, as their supream Lord, had they knowne that Peter and his Successors had been the supreame Monarches of the world.

In the second age,* 1.314 Iustine Martyreq 1.315 in the name of all the Christians of that age (one of which was the Pope) professeth to the Heathen Emperors, We adore only God, & vobis in rebus aliis laeti inseruimus, and we willingly serue & obey you in other matters. Irenaeusr 1.316, Know ye O Emperours what is committed vnto you; totus orbis sub manum vestram subditus est, the whole world (then sure the Pope) is subiect to your power and diadem. Egesippuss 1.317 declares that not Christs kingdome (and then certainly neither Peters nor the Popes) is a terrene or secular kingdome: For when Domiti∣an the Emperour, fearing to lose his kingdome, would haue killed all that were found of the house of Dauid, and inquired what manner of kingdome Christs was, they answered ••hat it was no kingdome of this world. Tertullian is most full in this point, Emperors knowt 1.318 who gaue to them the Empire, they know that they are only subiect to the power of God, to whom they are the second, and after whom the first, before all, and a∣boue all other man, ••hen sure aboue the Pope. And againe, in the name of all Christians of that age,

We honour, saith hex 1.319, the Emperor, vt hominem a Deo secundū, & solo deo minorem, as one who is next vnto God, and lesse onely then God, and who hath all his power from God. And lest any should thinke that this honour was giuen by Christians de facto, but not de iure, Tertullian expresly addes, We giue this honour to the Emperor, quomodo & nobis li∣cet, & ipsi expedit, as being lawfull for vs to giue, and expedient for him to receiue.

In the third age,* 1.320 Clemens Alexandrinusy 1.321: Christs precept of giuing to Cesar the things that are Cesars, (in which is commanded subiection of eue∣ry soule, euen the Pope, vnto secular Kings) is a law for administration of the Common-wealth. Ori∣gena 1.322, Whatsoeuer crimes God will haue to be tem∣porally punished, non per Antistites & Principes Ec∣clesiarū, sed per mundi iudices voluit vindicari, he will haue them to be punished by secular Princes, not by Bishops or Ecclesiasticall Prelates. Then certainely not by Peter or any of Peters successors. Cyprianb 1.323, Christ gaue parem potestatem, equall power, to all the Apostles; the rest were the same that Peter was, endowed all of them pari consortio & ho∣noris & potestatis; With an equall fellowship both of honour and power. Then either none, or (which is impossible) they all were supreme tem∣porall Monarches of the whole world. Victori∣nusc 1.324 cals the Caesarean Empire, Regnum Reg∣norum in regard of the supreame dominion it had ouer all. Who as vpon the greatnesse and power of that Empire he supposed, that one of those Em∣perors to wit, Nerod 1.325 did yet liue and should per∣sonally

come againe and be that mighty Antichrist; so had he liued to see the Pope to haue Regnum Regnorum, and to be a King aboue all Kings, euen such, that if Nero were now aliue, hee must bee his subiect and vassall, hee would not haue doubted vpon that same greatnesse and absolutenesse of his Tyrannicall power to haue called the Pope, much rather then Nero, Antichrist.

In the fourth age,* 1.326 Eusebius saithf 1.327 of Constan∣tine, that he ruled the whole world, (then I hope, the Pope) gubernaculis singularis potestatis, by his own Imperiall power. Athanasiusg 1.328 writes thus to Constantius the Emperour, If I were accused to o∣thers, I would appeale to your Maiesty, as Paul said, I appeale to Cesar. But seeing they accuse mee vnto you, ad quem a te, quaeso appellare potero, nisi ad De∣um? vnto whom can I appeale from you, but on∣ly to his Father, who saith, I am the Truth? Then certainely hee knew not the Pope to be a superi∣or Lord, for else vnto him, he might, and would haue appealed. Hillaryh 1.329 with admiration com∣mends that answer of Christ: Giue to Cesar that which is Cesars, and shewes that Christ, would not haue the right of Cesar to be violated or hurt. Now the right of Cesar (as we haue proued) is soue∣raignety ouer all, and obedience from all vnto him. Againe, he plainely sheweth that the Apo∣stles (none of which had other power then S. Paul) had not ciuill and temporall power. Nun∣quidi 1.330 Paulo ius Praetorium, Had Paul ciuill and praetorian authority, that he threatens to come with a rod? was he to vse lictoris officio, the office of a

Sergeant? Non ita opinandum est, wee may not thinke so. Gregory Nazianzenek 1.331, speaking of Kings saith, Mundus vniuersus vobis subditus, the whole world (then sure the Pope) is subiect to you, and to your Diademe. Those things which are aboue are onely Gods, those which are belowe, are both Gods and yours. Gregory Nissenel 1.332 Regia dignitas supra se nullam habet tyrannidem, the king∣ly dignity hath no humane power (then not the Popes) aboue it: It is obnoxious to no other mans will nor dominion. Cyrilln 1.333 Bishop of Ierusalem saith, that Antichrist shall vsurpe potestatem Romani im∣perii, the power of the Romane Empire, which, as he saith, is greater then was any of the former great Monarchies. A cleere token that Cyrill iud∣ged the Romane Emperor not to haue beene sub∣iect to any higher or greater temporall Monarch. Epiphaniuso 1.334 demanding how that Prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, He shall sit vpon the throne of Dauid, saith, carnaliter non est impletum; This was not carnally nor after a temporal manner fulfilled. And then he shewes, that by this throne of Dauid, is meant Sacerdotium in sancta Ecclesia, Christs Priesthood in the Church, whereby hee giues to the Church, power and Iurisdiction of binding and loosing. Which though Epiphanius there calles a Kingly dignity, yet it is certaine, that he meanes not any secular or ciuill kingdome, for that hee plainely denies vnto Christ; but he cals it kingly, because Christ from whom it is deriued, is both of the seed of King Dauid, and also an eternall King accor∣ding to his deity. Ambrosep 1.335 saith of Theodosius

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the Emperour, that he had potestatem super omnes, power ouer all; (then certainely ouer the Pope:) and againe,q 1.336 Kings are free from humane punish∣ments for their offences, tuti Imperii potestate, be∣ing safe from all humane iudgement by the pow∣er of their Empire, subiect onely to the power of God. Ruffinus saithr 1.337 of secular Kings, that their bounty and actions, discussioni non est obnoxia, is not obnoxious to the discussion (much lesse to the punishment) of any man. Ierome* 1.338 cleerely denveth ciuill and coactiue authority to Bishops. The King rules ouer men, though they will not; Bishops but ouer such as will: kings make others subiect to them by ter∣ror, Bishops are appointed to serue, not to terrifie. Kings keepe and rule the bodies vntill death, the o∣ther keepes and rules the soules vnto eternall life. Prudentiuss 1.339 saith of the Romane Empire: Thou, O Christ, hast placed Rome in vertice rerum, as the highest top of all things, Thou hast ordained that the world should be subiect to the successors of Romulus, & omne sub regn••m Remi mortale con∣cessit genus, and all mortall men, (then sure the Pope) are subiect to the Kingdome of Remus, that is, to the Romane Emperors.

In the fift age,* 1.340 Chrysostomt 1.341 saith of the Empe∣rour, parem non habet vllum super terram, there is none vpon earth (then not the Pope) equall to him; He is summit as & caput omnium super terram hominum, The head and top of euery one vpon earth. Optatusu 1.342 Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, Aboue the Em∣peror there is none but God who made the Em∣peror;

then out of question the Pope is not aboue him. Augustineb 1.343, Let vs not giue or ascribe the power of giuing kingdomes and Empires to any nisi Deo vero, but onely to the true God (then not to the Pope:) He giues the Kingdome of heauen only to the godly, but earthly kingdomes he giues both to the good and bad, as it is pleasing to him, to whom no∣thing but what is iust is pleasing. Prosperc 1.344 teacheth all Christians (is not the Pope one?) to be obedi∣ent to secular Princes, Aequum seruire est regibus & dominis, and he plainely distinguishethd 1.345 the scep∣ter of the Crosse, from the weapons of the Empire, and arcem religionis, from solium potestatis, the tower of religion from the throne of power. O∣rosiuse 1.346, That all power is of God both those who haue not read haue felt, and those who haue read doe know; and if all powers be of God, how much more are kingdomes, frō which other powers are deriued: & if kingdomes, how much more is the greatest kingdome, cui reliquorum regnorū potest as vniuersa subiicitur, to which the whole power of other lesser king∣domes is subiect? of which sort was the Babylonian, then the Grecian, then the Africane, at last the Ro∣mane, quod vsque adhuc manet, which as yet re∣maineth. Then had not the Pope any greater Mo∣narchy at that time. Sulpitius Seuerusf 1.347 saith of the Councell at Sardica, Imperator iubet ex toto orbe terrarum, the Emperour commanded the Bi∣shops throughout the whole world (then he com∣manded the Pope) to come to Sardica, to examine the cause of Anathasius. Cyrillg 1.348 the most famous Bishop of Alexandria writes thus vnto the Empe∣rors; There may be seene in you the image of Gods

Maiestie, Vos enim omni terreno fastigio superiores, for you are superior to all terrene highnesse, you are the fountaine of humane felicitie, Quicquid vs∣quam est gentium hoc totum regni vestri solio sub∣stratum est, Whatsoeuer is here vpon earth, (then belike the Pope) is subiect to the throne of your Maiestie. Theodoretk 1.349 Bishop of Cyrus, The Roman Empire orbis terrarum clauos tenuit, ru∣led the whole world, and it did not perish, but flou∣rish at Christs comming, and had the world subiect vnto it, and the same kingdome of the Romanes, vs∣que adhuc permansit, hath continued vnto this time. Then all (euen the Pope) were at that time subiect vnto it. And that Popes ought de iure, so to be, he shewesl 1.350 by the words of S. Paul, Let eue∣ry soule be subiect to the higher powers, whether he be any Priest or any Bishop, (then I hope the Pope) or any Monke, he must yeeld subiection to those to whom Magistracy is giuen. Theodulusm 1.351 Bishop of Coelesyria, expounds those words, Omnis anima potestatibus subdatur, to be spoken not of euery supe∣riour, sed de ipso magistratu, but of the ciuill Magi∣strate, and the Apostle shewes, saith he, that it is ne∣cessary that euery one (then the Pope) should obey the Magistrate, for the Gospell is not giuen to bee a sub∣uersion of publicke gouernment and order. Vincen∣tius Lyrinensisn 1.352 highly extols both Cyrill and the holy Ephesine Councell, which was held but three yeeres before he writ. Now it is true that he there mentioneth caput orbis, but hee meanes not the Pope thereby, as Bellarmineo 1.353 most frau∣dulently and falsly would perswade. The true

and onely Caput orbis, which he meaneth, was he, of whom both Cyrillh 1.354 saith, that all the whole world was subiect to the Emperors throne, & whom the whole Ephesine Councell calledi 1.355 Christia∣nisimum fastigium, the most Christian toppe and highnesse. Other Caput orbis, Vincentius knew none. Socratesk 1.356, there was enuy at that time a∣mong them, seeing the Bishop of Rome, no otherwise then the Bishop of Alexandria, going beyond the bounds of a Bishop, ad secularē principatū erat iā ante delapsus, was now declined too much to secular gouernment: what would he haue said, if they had then attempted a secular Monarchy ouer the whole world? Leol 1.357 the great (a Pope that would not lose one iot of his pontificall right) so farre disclaimeth this temporal Monarchy, that he with great submission makes earnest suite and supplica∣tion to the Emperors, I requestedm 1.358 vt iuberetis, that you would command the Synod to be deferred to a more fit time. In 1.359 request that your Pietie sup∣plicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, would vouch∣safe to yeeld to our supplicatiō, that you would com∣mand that the Councell may be held in Italie; Allo 1.360 the Bishops (himselfe among the rest) cum gemi∣tibus & lacrimis supplicant, doe with sighes and teares make supplication to your Mansuetude. And when the Emperor would not yeeld vnto his supplication, neither for the place, nor the time, then he professeth,p 1.361 I haue endeuored as far as I can, vt Clementiae vestrae statutis pareatur, that I may obey the statutes of your Clemency. Pope Gelasiusq 1.362, There are two things by which the

world is principally ruled, the sacred authority of Bi∣shops, and the Regall power: of which regall power he addes, that the Emperor praesidet humano generi, & imperat saeculo, is aboue all men in dignity, and to rule in secular matters. And most cleerely in his tome of Anathematismes; Beforer 1.363 Christs time some were both Priests and Kings, as was Mel∣chisedech; but after Christ was once come, who is both King and Priest, vltra sibi nec Imperator Ponti∣ficis nomen imposuit, nec Pontifex regale fastigium vendicauit; Neither doth the Emperor take vnto him the name of Priest or Bishop, neither doth the Bishop challenge vnto him the Imperiall highnesse. So Pope Gelasius, at once defines, that Popes neither then had, nor euer ought to haue, Imperiall authoritie: much lesse a temporall Monarchie aboue all Emperors.

CHAP. V.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by the Fathers, and learned writers, who liued from the 500. to the 1000. yeere after Christ.

IN the sixt age,* 1.364 the Councell at Turonea 1.365 professeth, that besides the power of excom∣municating and anathemati∣zing, arma nobis non sunt alia, we haue no other wea∣pons. Then had not the Church, or Pope in that age, power to inflict temporall, ciuill, and coactiue pu∣nishments. An other Councellb 1.366 of Africane Bishops, Vigilium Romanum Episcopum synodaliter a catholica communione recludunt, did exclude Pope Vigilius from the Catholike Communion. Now those Bishops, being as Baroniusc 1.367 profes∣seth, Catholikes, it is a verie ill signe, the Pope was not then knowne, so much as for a spirituall, much lesse for a temporall Monarch in the Church. Pope Symachus being accused of a most scanda∣lous offence (to wit, of Adulteried 1.368 Theodorick the King at that time, commanded the Bishops of Italy, to come to a Synode 1.369 for the hearing and exa∣mining of this matter. He commandedf 1.370 also the Pope, not to take againe the Patrimonie of the Church, till he had purged himselfe of the crimes obiected. The Bishops came at the Kings com∣mand

g 1.371, the Popeh 1.372 also, vt causam diceret occur∣rebat, came to plead for himselfe; and before the whole Councell, he thankedi 1.373 the King for calling the Synod. The King gauek 1.374 such power to the Sy∣nod, that they might either examine particularly the whole cause, or leaue the particulars vndiscussed, but yet giue sentence therein. The Bishopsl 1.375, perpensis omnibus, hauing pondered the whole cause, iudged that Symachus should be receiued as Pope, and that his fact should be left to the iudgement of God. And all this they did, secundumm 1.376 principalia praecepta quae nostrae hoc tribuunt potestati, by command and authoritie of the King, who had committed this to their power. And though the Deacon Enno∣diusn 1.377 and some others of the Popes Parasites pretend, that Symachus in humilitie, and of his own accord submitted himselfe to their iudgement, yet Gersono 1.378, a man of more sound and profound learning, saith, both of Symachus, and some other Popes, they did vndergoe the iudgment of Councels, nequaquam ex humili condescentione, not by any submission of humilitie, as some doe faine, sed ex debito & obligatione, but in dutie, as being bound to stand to those iudgements. The same Pope Sy∣machusp 1.379, in his Apologie to Anastasius, puts this, and rightly, as a difference betwixt the Impe∣riall and Pontificall Offices, Thou O Emperour go∣uerns humane and secular affaires, Bishops doe di∣spence the Diuine Mysteries; and he expresly cals the Emperour, Principem rerum humanarum, the Prince or chiefe in humane matters. Pope Hor∣misdaq 1.380 to the Emperour Anastasius, saith,

Your Mansuetude hath admonished vs, God com∣manding you so to doe, to be present in the future Synod: Your Pietie obseruing these things, may long possesse Apicts & sceptra sua, your top of honour, and your Scepter. I returner 1.381 vnto you not onely words of supplication, sed vestigijs vestris aduoluor, but I prostrate my selfe at your footsteps. Pope Agapetuss 1.382 was sent in a legacie from Theodotus King of Italy, to the Emperour Iustinian, and he entreatedt 1.383 him to recall his armie out of Italy, but the Emperour supplicationes Papae noluit audire, would not hearken to the Popes supplication. Pope Vigiliusv 1.384 was sent for by Iustinian, to come to Constantinople, and he at the Emperors command came, and stayed there about sixe yeeres, till he had leaue to returne. Pope Pelagiusx 1.385 the first, writing to Childebert the King, saith, We must endeuour to declare the obedience of our profession vnto Kings, quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae scripturae prae∣cipiunt, to whom the holy Scriptures command, euen vs (that are Popes) to be subiect.

Fulgentiusy 1.386, The King hath receiued apicem terreni principatus, the top or height of temporall or terrene power. And againez 1.387 In saeculo, Chri∣stiano Imperatore nemo celsior inuenitur, none is found in this world (then sure not the Pope) to be higher then the Emperour. Agapetusa 1.388 a fa∣mous learned man, and Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, saith, to the Emperour Iustinian, Seeing you haue receiued the Scepter from God, and seeing, omnibus hominibus ab ••o sis praelatus, you are preferred aboue all men (then sure aboue the

Pope) by God, seeke therefore to please him in all things. And againeb 1.389, The Emperour non-habet in terris se quenquam al••••orem, hath none vpon earth (then not the Pope) aboue him. Which words being recited by Antonius Abbas in his Melissae, sound so strongly against the Popes Soueraigntie, that the Romane Censurers, in their Index Ex∣purgatorius, for desire of the spirituall, are content to forgoe and yeeld to Emperours the temporall supremacy, and qualifie the words in this maner,c 1.390 write in the margent, Intellige inter saeculares et tem∣porales dignitates; Agapetus meanes, the Empe∣rour is aboue all in secular and temporal dignities. In like sort the Spanish Index* 1.391, whereas it is said in Agapetus, The Emperour hath none in earth aboue him, write, say they, in the Margent, Intellige de po∣testate politica, & saeculari, There is none aboue him in politicall and secular matters; and often the like. Enough for vs against the Popes secular Monarchy. Primasiusd 1.392 saith of the Romane Empire, Orb•• monarchiae praefuit dominatu, it was the Lord and Monarch of the world, And in the name of Rome, is figured totius terreni regni potentiae the whole power of any terrene Kingdome. Libe∣ratuse 1.393 saith of Martianus, that he obteyned cul∣men Imperij, the top of the Empire, and that at the request of the Pope, he assembled a generall councell, he thought not then the Pope to be aboue him, or his commander. Euagriusf 1.394 both reports and allowes the saying of Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum, s••t downe in the Councell at Chalce∣don, That vnto the Emperour, was giuen by the

Diuine power of God, imperium mortalium & do∣minatus, the Empire and rule of mortall men; one of which I suppose was the Pope. Cassiodorei 1.395 sets down the Epistle of Theodohadus to Iustinian the Emperour, wherein it is said, That in toto orbe simile nihil haberet, in the whole world, none (for power and dignitie) is equall to the Emperour. And in an other placek 1.396 If any of the people of∣fend, he sinnes both against God and the King, but when the King offends, soli Deo reus est, he is guiltie only to God, quia hominem non habet qui facta eius dijudicet, because he hath no man (then not the Pope) that may examine his actions, God alone may discusse and iudge his offences Venantius For∣tunatus saithl 1.397, Valentinian was Emperor mundo fa∣mulante, the whole world (then belike the Pope) seruing or being subiect to him. And in his poemem 1.398 of Iustinus the Emperour, he often cals him the head of the world, repeating this verse vnto God, Qui das Iustinū, iustus, in orbe caput, adding, that he did Rite super reges dominari; Romanoque imperat orbi; An euidence that he knew not an higher temporall Monarch in the Romane or western Empire. Gregorius Bishop of Turonen 1.399 speaking to Childerike the King of France, who had obiected iniustice vnto him, thus answered, If any of vs O King, doe transgresse the bounds of Iustice, he may be corrected by you; but if you trans∣gresse them, who shall punish you•• we speake vnto you; If you be willing, you obey, but if you be not willing, who can condemne you, but he onely who hath pro∣nounced, that he is Iustice? The Bishop sure knew

not all Kings to be punishable by the Pope as a superiour Lord.

In the seuenth age,* 1.400 Pope Agathoo 1.401, with an whole Councell of Italian, and other western Bi∣shops, often professeth the Emperourp 1.402 to be their Lord, the Citie of Romeq 1.403, to be his seruile Citie, Italy, his seruiler 1.404 Prouince. Of himselfe he saith, I wass 1.405 animated promptam obsequentiam exhibere effectually to performe readie obedience in those things which in the Sacred Writ of your Highnesse, are commanded. I endeuoured, vt studiosa obedien∣tia famulatus nostri impleret, that the willing obe∣dience of my seruice might fulfill this; We haue sent these our Legates, pro obedientia quam debuimus for that obedience which we owe vnto you. This yourt 1.406 Imperiall Clemencie did command, and our humilitie quod iussum est obsequentur impleuit, hath obediently fulfilled what you did command. Doe these seeme to be the speeches of a Supreame Monarch? and that to his owne vassall? Pope Gregory* 1.407 the great saith of the Emperour, Deus vniuerso mundo praeesse constituit, God hath ordei∣ned that he should rule the whole world. And againe,x 1.408 Potest as dominorum meorum caelitus data est super omnes homines, The power ouer all men (then sure ouer the Pope) is giuen from heauen to my Lord the Emperour.y 1.409 My most excellent Lord hath commanded me by his precept, ego praeceptioni Pietatis eorum obediens, I am obedient to the Em∣perours command. And he speakes not this of humilitie, as some doe vainly pretend, but as ac∣knowledging this to be his dutie, Egoz 1.410 quae de bui

exolui, qui imperatori obedientiam praebui, I haue done what was my dutie to doe, both in obeying the Emperour, and signifying also to you what I thinke in this cause. Isiodorus Hispalensisa 1.411, Let se∣cular Princes know, that they must giue an account to God for the Church, the tuition of which they haue receiued of Christ. He will call for an account of them, qui eorum potestati suam credidit ecclesiam, who committed his Church to their power. Le∣ontiusb 1.412 saith of Theodosius, Coire iubet, he com∣manded the Bishops (euen the Pope among o∣thers) to come to the second Ephesian Councell: Pope Leo (vpon that command) sent his Legat thither. Iustus Orgelitanus,c 1.413 Those who are eminent by Princely honour in the Church, are noted quasi caput in Christi corpore, as the head in the body of Christ (that is, the Church;) those who administer Sacraments are as the lockes of the head. Then are Kings the head, and the Pope but as a faire locke in the head of the Church.

In the eight age,* 1.414 the Romane Counceld 1.415 held An. 774. consisting of 153. Bishops and Abbots, in acknowledgment of the Soueraigntie of Charles then King of Italy, decreed the right of inuestitures of Bishops (which is an Imperiall prerogatiue or right of Soueraigntie) and particularly, the appoin∣ting of the Pope himselfe, and ordering the Romane See, to belong vnto Charles the great and his succes∣sors. Baronius not being able dissuere nodum, to answer this euidence of truth, takes vpon him like an other Alexander, dissecare, to cut it quite asunder. Hee 1.416 obstinately denies (as doth also

his Apologist,f 1.417 that either any such Synod was euer held, or any such Decree made. And here∣vpon, both of them, with most reuiling tearmes declaimeg 1.418 against Sigebert as the forgerer or first inuentor of this Synod and Decree, or as they speake, of this figment. But they do herein bewray their most malicious obstinacie in downfacing the truth and true records. For how could Sigebert who writ his Cronicles, as Baronius and Gretserh 1.419 assure vs, an. 1112. be the deuiser of this Decree, whereas Henry the fift beforei 1.420 that, chalenged the right of inuestitures, as a Royall prerogatiue belonging to the Empire, and continued in the Emperours hands, not only from the time of Charles, & Pope Hadrian, that is, for more then 300 yeeres, & during the time of 63 Popes, but euen eorūdem authoritate et priuilegiorum firmitate, by the verie authoritie of those Popes, and by those priuiledges granted by them? Was there any priuiledge for inuestitures, granted by a∣ny Pope to the Emperor, frō the time of Charles, but this of Hadrian and the Romane Synod? Vn∣doubtedly had this Synod & Synodall decree bin forged by any, the Emperor Henry 5. would not; and had Sigebert deuised it, an. 1112. (at which time he writ) the Emperor could not haue vrged it as a knowne right, yea for such, as 300 yeeres together had been continued vnto Emperors. How againe could Sigebert be the first architect and deuiser of this Synod & decree, seeing Pope Gregory 6 (who was not pope within 64 yeresk 1.421 before Sigebert writ & perhaps not when Sigebert was born) doth not only mention, but cōmend this decree of Hadrian••

Hadrianl 1.422 the first, our predecessor of worthy me∣mory, is commended, for that he granted Inuestitures of Churches, vnto Charles; His very words are set downe in Malmesburiensis. An euidence so cleare to demonstrate Baronius, and Gretzer to be Ca∣lumniators of Sigebert, and downe-facers of the truth, that Gretzerm 1.423 is forced to slander Mals∣buriensis also as an impostor and deuiser of this speech of Gregory, as Sigebert was of the decreee of Ha∣drian. Further yet, how could Sigebert first deuise this Decree, seeing the Romane Councell, held An. 964. wherein Iohn the 12. was deposed, makes ex∣presse mentionn 1.424 thereof, more then 140. yeeres be∣fore Segebert writ? It is true, that here againe both the Cardinallo 1.425, and his shamelesse Apo∣logist p 1.426, are driuen to their former shift; This also must be an Imposture and figment. But it fals out vnhappily, that Baronius forgetting the olde rule, Mendacem oportet esse memorem, doth vpon ano∣ther occasion, where the Popes dignity is not im∣peached, not onely allow Leo 8. for the true Pope, (which elsewhere he stoutly denies) but acknow∣ledgeth this Romane Synod to haue beene truely held by Pope Leo 8. and cals this very constituti∣on of Leo made in that Synod, Decretumq 1.427 Leo∣•••• is Papae octaui, the Decree of Pope Leo the eight. So not onely that Synod vnder Leo 8. but Baroni∣us his owne selfe, is a witnesse, that he and Gretzer slander Sigebert, and fight with all their power to oppresse the truth. Do you as yet require a more ancient witnesse? How could Sigebert be the de∣uiser of this Synod and Synodall Decree, seeing

Anastasius the Keeper of their Vaticane librarie, one who liued either in or very neere the timer 1.428 of Charles, and who in all likelihood saw in their Vaticane, some authenticall copie of that Synod; seeing he, I say, made mention both of this Synod and Synodall Decree, and that, some 200. yeeres before Sigebert was borne. It is true I confesse, that this testimony is not now to be found in the Popes liues written by Anastasius. But that there it was once extant, and is now to their eternall infamy, and wrong of Anastasius, yea of the whole Church, expunged, there are two euident witnes∣ses. The one is Onuphriuss 1.429 who telling how the custome of Inuestitures, of which Gregory 7. primus omnium, first of all did attempt to depriue Emperors, had continued from the time of Charles the Great, and was brought in by the authority of Pope Hadrian, he thus concludes: Cuius rei memi∣nit Anastasius Bibliothecarius in historia Ecclesia∣stica; Quem locum Gratianus Canonum collector no∣tauit. Anastasius the library keeper, mentions this in his Ecclesiasticall historie, and Gratian in his collection of the Canons, points at, or cites that place of Anastasius. Gretzer could not deny O∣nuphrius to testifie this, but because it is against his and his Masters fancy, he saitht 1.430, It is an error of Onuphrius; Onuphrius forgot himselfe herein. Peruicacy will euer find one shift or other, but by this cleere and true testimony of Onuphrius, (be∣sides that maine truth, of this Synod and Synodall Decree) two things are cleere; the one that Ana∣stasius had set downe this whole matter in his

booke of the Popes liues; the other, that Gratian tooke it, not out of Sigebert, as Baroniusu 1.431 very childishly fancieth; but out of Anastasius: and that the very booke, out of which Gratian citeth it, cal∣led by him historia Ecclesiastica, is the very booke of Anastasius, and by that same name, called by O∣nuphrius. The other witnesse is Platina who saithx 1.432, Lewes granted to the Pope free power to chuse Bishops, quam potestatem ab Hadriano Ponti∣fice Carolo concessam idem Bibliothecarius refert, which power to haue beene granted by Pope Ha∣drian to Charles, the same Bibliothecarius, (to wit, Anastasiusy 1.433 doth relate. Now besides Hen••y 5. Pope Gregory 6. the Romane Councel vnder Leo, and Anastasius, the truth of the same Synod and Synodall Decree is witnessed by Eutropius Lon∣gobardus a 1.434, who liued before the Empireb 1.435 of O∣tho 1. that is, 100. yeares before Sigebert: by Iuo Carnotensisc 1.436, who writ also befored 1.437 Sigebert: by Waltram Naumbergensise 1.438 another writer be∣fore f 1.439 Sigebert: by Gratiang 1.440 who liued in the same age with Sigebert, by the Glossatorsh 1.441 vpon Gratian, by Lupoldusi 1.442, Theodor. de Niemk 1.443, Ra∣dulph. de Columna,l 1.444, Marsilius Patauinusm 1.445, Occam n 1.446, Anton. de Roselliso 1.447, Iohan. Semecap 1.448, Card. Za∣barell

q 1.449, Card. Turrecrematar 1.450, Card. Cusanuss 1.451, Card. Cameracensis* 1.452, Platinat 1.453, Nauclerusu 1.454, Mart. Polonusx 1.455, Wernerusy 1.456, the Chronicon Richer sper∣gensez 1.457, Rob. Gagninusa 1.458, Matth. Parisiensisb 1.459, Matth. Westmonasteriensisc 1.460, Onuphriusd 1.461, Boetius Epo* 1.462, who earnestly striues for the truth of this Decree: and by many moe. So that vnlesse Baronius and his applauders had shut their eyes, and hardned their hearts against the truth, they would make no doubt, either that this Synod was truely held, or that the Emperor was then acknowledged, euen by the Popes themselues, to be their Soueraigne.

The Councell at Frankforde 1.463, professeth that Charles was Dominus terrae, the Lord of the world; that the Bishopsf 1.464 assembled sacris obtemperando praeceptis, obeying the sacred command of Charles, as Charles himselfe also witnessethg 1.465, Iussimus Synodale Concilium congregari, we haue comman∣ded this Synod to be assembled out of all the Churches ditionis nostrae, which are in our domi∣nion. Then certainely both hee commanded the Romane Bishops, (for Rome was then in his do∣minion) and the Pope obeyed his command, and senth 1.466 Theophilactus & Stephanus for his legates to the Synod.

Pope Stephen 3.i 1.467 writes to Pipin and Charles, in a most earnest and suppliant manner, entreating their aid against the Lombards. Nay he not one∣ly entreats this himselfe, but he frames an Epistle in the name of S. Peterk 1.468 vnto them, wherein he

makes, both S. Peter, the Blessed Virgin, all the Thrones, Dominations, Martyres, Confessors and Saints in heauen, to sue for this at the hands of Pipin and Charles, and euen to coniurel 1.469 them to helpe the Romane Church in this their great distresse. What needed such supplication, such poeticall fictions, and coniurations, had Pope Stephen knowne him∣selfe to be the Soueraigne Lord, who might com∣mand Pipin, Charles, and all the Kings in the world; and to whose command they ought all to be obedient, vnlesse they would be rebels against their supreame Monarch? Pope Adrian* 1.470 the first, acknowledged the Emperors for his Lords: We arem 1.471 euen drencht with ioy for your command, in that ye command this cause of Images to be handled. Againe,n 1.472 I offer this my iudgement with all humi∣litie to your Screnitie, that it may be discussed: I en∣treat and beseech your Mansuetude with all feruor of mind: yea, I beseech you, as if I were present genibus aduo lutus & coram vestigia pedum volutando, vpon my bended knees prostrate at the sole of your feet. Pope Gregoryo 1.473 the second, As the Bishop hath no power or authoritie to looke into the Palace, (that is, to intermeddle in secular affaires) ac digni∣tates regales deferendi, nor to giue regall dignities, so neither hath the Emperour power to looke into Churches, and intermeddle in those duties; Let euerie one abide in that vocation, whereunto he is called of God. Germanusp 1.474 Patriarch of Constantinople hath a constitution (extant yet in the Vaticane) wherein he repr••ues the Italians who disobeyed the Emperour. Now the chiefe leader of those Itali∣ans,

who made that defection, and denied tribute to him, was Pope Gregorie the 2, as before we shewed. Venerable Bedeq 1.475, If the King offend, he offends onely to God, quia nullus alius eum pro suis peccatis puniet, because no mortall man (then not the Pope) may punish him for his faults. Iohannes Damascenus,r 1.476 Regum est ciuilis administratio, ciuill administration and gouernment belongs to Kings, We obey thee O King in those things which belong to ciuill and secular matters, in them, quan∣tum ad nos spectat, in respect of vs that are of the Clergie, the gouernment is committed to you. But in ecclesiasticall affaires, Pastors, and Bishops, haue deliuered to vs lawes and constitutions, we may not remoue those eternall bounds which are set vnto vs. Bonifaciuss 1.477 that famous Englishman, and first Archbishop of Ments, when he was sent Legate into Germanie, from Pope Gregorie the second, with many ample priuiledges, suppliciter obsecrauit, humbly entreated King Pipine, for the Monastery of Fulda, and lands belonging to it; What needed that, had he knowne the Pope who sent him, to be the supreame Lord of the world? Paulus Diaco∣nust 1.478 saith of Constantine, that he was Monocrator totius Romani Imperij, the sole Monarch of the whole Romane Empire. Then sure he knew not the Pope to be an other, much lesse an higher Monarch. Alcuinusv 1.479 that learned Englishman, Scholer of Bede, and Schoolmaster of Charles the great, saith of Charles (whō he vsually calsx 1.480 king Dauid) that there are three most eminent dignities vpon earth; one is Papall, the second is Imperiall,

(such as the Greeke Emperours had) the third is Regall, in which saith he, Christ hath made you the ruler of his Christian people, more excellent in power, more high in dignitie, then either of the former. Againe,y 1.481 Rex Carolus caputorbis; Europae vene∣randus apex, king Charles is the head of the world, and the top of Europe. Then sure aboue the Pope.

In the ninth age, The Councell at Parisn 1.482 held,* 1.483 Anno 829. saith, That Christ hath com∣mitted his Church to be gouerned by his seruants Lewes, and Lotharius, then Emperours: and they set downeo 1.484 this out of Fulgentius, for one of their decrees, There is none in the Church (that is, in Church affaires) better then the Bishop, and none in secular affaires aboue the Emperor. The Councell at Triburiap 1.485 saith of Arnulphus the Emperour,q 1.486 The King of Kings, Arnulphum om∣nibus ecclesiasticae sublimitatis ordinibus praeferre dignatus est, hath vouchsafed to prefer Arnulphus our pacificall king, aboue all orders, both of eccle∣siasticall sublimitie, and of secular power. Pope Stephenr 1.487 the seuenth, writes thus to Basilius the Emperour, Your Maiestie knoweth, that the Priestly dignitie, doth not proceed from your Kingly power, quamuis enim supremam Christi in terris personam formamque ger as, for although you be the highest person representing Christ here vpon earth, yet your care is only in politicall and ciuil matters, which we wish to remaine long vnto you. And againe, In things belonging to this life, vobis Imperium a Deo est traditum, the Empire and rule is giuen by God vnto you. Pope Nicholas,s 1.488 Ecclesia gladium non

habet nisi spiritualem, the Church hath no other but onely the spiritual sword; then hath it no tem∣porall Monarchy. Photiust 1.489 Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, was so far from thinking the Pope to be a supreame Monarch, That he in a Sy∣nod, iudicially, both deposed, and accursed the Pope. Hincmarusv 1.490 Archbishop of Rhemes, There are two things, whereby the world is gouerned; Pontificall authoritie, and Regall power: And then he shewes, That neither may thrust him∣selfe into the office of the other; to which pur∣pose he in an other placex 1.491 cyteth those words of Ambrose, Ad Imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem ecclesia, Emperours are to deale in secular, Bishops in ecclesiasticall matters; yea, he setsy 1.492 downe also that Epistle of Charles the se∣cond, wherein is taught, that to these two (to Bishops in Ecclesiasticall, to Kings in Secular causes) one may appeale, but from these none may appeale. Then is none in secular matters aboue the King. Ama∣larius z 1.493 Fortunatus writs thus to Lewes the Em∣perour, I haue presumed to offer this vnto your Ex∣cellencie, praesertim cum sciamus vos Rectorem esse totius Christianae religionis quantum ad homines pertinet, that you are the Gouernor of the whole christiā religiō, as much as pertaines to man. Hai∣mo a 1.494 saith, Princes are called in Scripture, Heads; for, that they iure capitis caeteros regunt, gouerne others (and among them the Pope) in the right of an head. Theodulphusb 1.495 Bishop of Orleans, saith of Lewes the Emperour, Orbis te totus veneratur, the whole world doth worship you, and Primus

in orbe micas, Te scio 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praeit, you are the first or chiefe in the world: I know, there is none, (then not the Pope) before or aboue you.

In the tenth age,* 1.496 the Romane Councellc 1.497 held An. 963, for many and enormious vices, deposed Iohn the twelfth, and placed Leo the eighth in his See; Which act approued by Otho the Emperor, with the whole Synod, is a verie ill signe they held not the Pope for their supreame Lord, when they iudged themselues to haue, and that de Iure, autho∣ritie aboue him.

An other Romane Synodd 1.498 was held shortly after, by Pope Leo the eighth, wherein he with the whole Clergie, and all the Popes and States of Rome, decreed and confirmed to Otho the great, and his suc∣cessors, for euer, power both to nominate his own suc∣cessors in the Empire, and also to order the pontificall See (that is, to elect the Pope) and giue other Bisho∣pricks by inuestiture. The truth both of this Synod and Synodall decree, is testified in their Canon Lawe 1.499, in Theodorick de Niemf 1.500, Waltram Na∣umbergensisg 1.501, Martinus Polonush 1.502, Lupoldusi 1.503, Marsilius Patauinusk 1.504, Radulp. de Columnal 1.505, Platinam 1.506, Nauclerusn 1.507, Card. Cusanuso 1.508, Card. Cameracensisp 1.509, and many moe. But against Baro∣nius and Gretzer, who are as eager against this Sy∣nod, as they were against the other, held vnder Hadrian, accounting* 1.510 and calling this also an impo∣sture and figment, and that among other reasons, because this Leo the eighth, was not at all Pope,

but a pseudo. Popeq 1.511. I will only here oppose the cleare confession of Baronius himselfe, who, when his fit of furie was ouerpast, writeth in this manner, and directly confutes a great part of his owne Annals; Whereasr 1.512 Emperours had not this right to chuse their successors, this is found to be first granted to Otho the great by the Pope. Extat de his Leonis Papae octaui decretum, there is extant con∣cerning this the Decree of Pope Leo the eighth, which euen the Nouelists and Centuriators also doe recite: wherein among other things the Pope grants power to Otho to chuse his successor. And hauing af∣ter this repeated the verie wordes of the Synodall Decree, as they are set downe in their Canon Law, and in Theodorick de Niem, he ads, That Oth•• authoritate huius diplomatis, by authoritie of this Decree, and Papall Charter, chose his sonne for his successor: and so we see this power to choose their suc∣cessors, to come ex praescripto Romanorum pontificum by the authoritie and charter of the Pope. Thus, Baronius; acknowledging both Leo the eighth to haue been the true Pope (which he most peruersly s 1.513 else-where denies:) and further this Synod vn∣der Leo the eight, to haue beene a true and reall Synod, which he and Gretzer striues, but all in vain, to proue a forgerie; & lastly, that this Synod, and the true Pope with it, acknowledged the right of chusing the Pope, and inuesting Bishops (which is an Act of Imperiall Soueraigntie) to be in the Emperor, & therfore not the Pope, but the Empe∣rour to haue been held for the supreame Monarch in those daies.

Another Decree, either in this, or in an other Romane Synod,t 1.514 was made by the same Leo, about that time also, whereby the Pope (in ac∣knowledgment of that Imperiall Soueraigntie aboue himselfe, and of that supreame right which the Emperor had to all the territories in Italy, (e∣uen to those which the Pope held) resigned them all vnto Otho. The words of the Decree are re∣corded by Albertus Krantziusv 1.515 and Theodorick de Niem,x 1.516 in this manner, We giue vnto Otho and his Successors for euer, whatsoeuer either Charles, or Pipin, or Iustinian, or Aripert, had giuen of the Rega∣lities of the Kingdome to S. Peter, or the Romane Church. And that you may haue and possesse them for euer, by authority of this our Charter, we confirme them to you for all generations; and if any shall in∣fringe this our authoritie or grant, or shall be found a violator thereof, let him know, that he shall fall into the ind••gnation of S. Peter, of Vs, and of our praede∣cessors; yea if he doe not repent, let his goods be con∣fiscate, and he punished as one reus Maiestatis, guiltie of high treason. So let it be. This Decree was made as Theodorick saith,y 1.517 in generali concilio, he meanes in a verie great Romane Councell, at which were presentz 1.518 and subscribed to it fifteene Archbishops and Bishops, seuen Cardinals, & fifteene chiefe Citizens of Rome. Did either the Pope him∣selfe, or others at this time, esteeme the Pope a su∣preame temporall Monarch of Rome, or Italy, when he resigned these vnto the Emperour, as to his Superior, yea Soueraigne Lord of them? Ba∣ronius and Gretzer, are exceedingly netled with

this decree, and exclaima 1.519 both against it, and Leo, as being no true Pope. But the Cardinall himselfe hath refuted all that he, or any else can say against Leo, when he acknowledgedb 1.520 him to be the true Pope, and his Decree to be Diploma, a Pontificall Charter of sufficient authoritie to giue the right of choosing ones successor in the Empire. And for the truth of this Decree, besides Theodorick, and Krantzius, who are indeed witnesses beyond iust exception in this cause, the same is testifyed by Barnard, who saith,c 1.521 That Leo the eight, with the consent of the Cardinals and Bishops, yea of the whole Clergie and people of Rome, restored to Otho and his Successors, the Donations made by Iustinian, Aripert, Pipin, and Charles. It is further testified by their owne Cardinall Cusanus, an eye witnesse of this Charter, who thus writes,d 1.522 Vidi Decre∣tum Leonis Papae, I haue seene the Decree made by Pope Leo the eight, in the Romane Synod subscribed by the Bishops, Clergie, and people of Rome, whereby he restores to Otho the first, all the places which Charles, Pipin, or Aripert (he is corruptly written Robert) gaue to S. Seter, and the places are particular∣ly named in the Decree. And againe, I muche 1.523 maruell that Gratian speaking of the inuestiture of Bishops granted by Leo, which text proues Otho to be Emperour (to wit, superior to the Pope) did not also mention that restitution of those Cities which were giuen to the Romane Church. So Cusanus. The same Synodall Decree is yet further testifyed by those foure famous Schooles of Learning, which were then honored with the name of Vniuersities

or Academies; to wit, the vniuersitie of Paris, of Oxford, of Prage, and of Rome, who in a treatise* 1.524 written by them all vnto Pope Vrbane, and Wencelaus the Emperour, said thus: Pope Leo the eight, by reason of the malice and turbulencie of the Romanes, decreed that none should be made Pope, but with the consent of the Emperour; and further with the consent of the Cardinals, Bishops, Presby∣ters and Deacons, yea of the whole Cleargie, and people of Rome, he remised, granted and gaue to O∣tho and his successours, those donations in Italie which were made to the Romane Church, by Iustini∣an, Pipin, Charles, and others. Thus witnesse those foure famous Vniuersities, in whom is in∣cluded the iudgment of many other most learned Diuines.

Eutropius Longobardusf 1.525 professedly, & at large shewes, that not onely before and in the time of Charles the Great, but long after, the Soueraigne power and gouernment of Rome was still in the Em∣perour; and that Charles ordained that all the chiefe men of Rome, as well Bishops as others, essent Impe∣riales homines, should be the Emperours men or vassals, and that they, as all the rest, should make fide∣litie to the Emperour; and that the Emperours de∣putie should at all times stay in Rome, to determine litigious controuersies; and this custome continued to the time of Lewis the second, the sonne of Lotha∣rius (that is, till the yeere 880.) after which time the Emperours authoritie in Rome, by the fraud of the Romanes, began to decline. Luitprandusg 1.526 not only relates, but approoues the iudgement of that

Romane Synod which deposed Iohn 12. And he not only callesh 1.527 Otho, pium ac sanctum Imperatorem, a pious and holy Emperour; and Leo then chosen, summum & vniuersalem papam a Deo electum, the highest and vniuersall Bishop, chosen by God; but he further sets it downe as an act of impietie and rebellion in Iohn 12. and others of his faction, who resisted this Synodall and Imperiall iudge∣ment; Iohn (saith hei 1.528) being deposed, sent messengers to Rome, promising to giue them the money of Saint Peter, and of all Churches (an holy offer for a Pope to make) if they would rush vpon the Emperour, and the new Pope Leo, eosque impiissimè trucidarent, and if they would kill them both, (which Litprandus saith, was a most impious enterprize:) and he adds, that the Emperour thereupon returned, and slew a number of them, so that none had escaped, vnlesse the Emperour being inclined to mercy, (quae nulla debe∣batur, which in no sort was due vnto them,) had at the entreatie and supplication of Pope Leo spared them. Rheginok 1.529 both records and approoues the same fact of the Synode, and Emperor, in depo∣sing Iohn; adding, that the Romanes sub iureiur ando fidelitatem promiserunt, promised by an oath ta∣ken vpon the bodie of Saint Peter, that they would bee faithfull to the Emperour (as their Soueraigne Lord,) and the new chosen Pope Leo. Abbo Floria∣censisl 1.530 saith of Charles the Great, This citie was committed to Charles our King, Imperio cuius regi∣tur totus prope cosmus post dominum, by whose Em∣pire, next and immediately vnder God, is gouer∣ned almost the whole world. Whitichindusm 1.531 not

onely calles the Emperour Henry, regum optimum, maximum, the greatest and best of Kings, but sets downe the forme of crowning the Romane King at Aquisgrane, one part of which is this; Take this sword, omni potestate imperii Francorum tibi au∣thoritate diuina tradita, all the power of the Em∣pire of the French (they had then and long before beene the Romane Emperours) being giuen vnto you by diuine authoritie. Frodoardusn 1.532 speaking of the Popes letters, sent to the Synode at Vir∣dunum, in the behalfe of Hugo, who had beene put from the Archbishopricke of Rhemes; Pope Agapetus the second, commanding therein, the Bi∣shops to restore Hugh to that Archbishoprick, yet saith Frodoardus, nihil authoritatis canonicae conti∣nebant, the Popes letters contained no canonicall authoritie: and the whole Synode notwithstan∣ding the Popes command, did (and that he saith, iustly and by the ancient canons) adiudge the See to Artaldus, and that Hugh should be excommunica∣ted, till he purged himselfe at the generall Synode; and the generall Synod being shortly after assem∣bled, they did, notwithstanding the Popes command to the contrarie, with one consent confirme Artal∣dus, and reiect Hugh. Did they esteeme, thinke you, the Pope to bee their supreame Lord either in temporall or in Ecclesiasticall matters?

CHAP. VI.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchie is condemned by the Bishops, and learned writers, who liued from the 1000. to the 1100. yeere.

IN the eleuenth age,* 1.533 this con∣trouersie, which till then none durst euer set on foote, beganne to bee rife in the Church; Leo the ninth, at the instigation of Hildebrand, first claiming, and Pope Hil∣debrand shortly after, vsur∣ping the same in his deposing of Henry the fourth, and giuing his Empire to Rodulph, and after his death to others. How this Hildebrandicall do∣ctrine was embraced, and what applause it then had, is worthy obseruing.

The Councell at Wormesa 1.534 was held ann. 1076. wherein were present almostb 1.535 all the Ger∣mane Bishops: In it Hildebrandum papam abdica∣runt, they did reiect and forsake Pope Hildebrand, pronouncingc 1.536 this iudiciall sentence, quod papa esse non possit, that he could not be, nor indeeded 1.537 was Pope, and that hee had no power either to binde or loose by the priuiledge of the Romane See, and that none should care for his curse; they write 1.538 vnto him, that whatsoeuer he did from thence command or de∣cree, irritum haberi, they would esteeme it void; and that as he did not account them for Bishops, ita tu

quoque nulli nostrum amodo eris Apostolicus, so nei∣ther shall you from hence forward be accounted Pope by any of vs.

In the Councell of Papia, held the same yeere, 1076. Anathemaf 1.539 in se prolatum in Pontificem retorserunt, The Bishops returned the like curse and Anathema to Pope Hildebrand as he had denounced against them. The decree of the Councell was this,g 1.540 Hildebrand who calles himselfe Gregory the seuenth, hath inuaded the See. He vsurpes both the Imperiall and Pontificall office, as the old Heathen Emperours were wont to doe: hee hath committed treason, in seeking to take away from the Emperour both his crowne and his life, neither of which hee can giue: for these causes, the most holy Emperour, the Bishops, the Senate and Christian peo∣ple, do decree him to bee deposed. To this decree subscribed at Ticinumh 1.541, (or Papiai 1.542) not one∣ly the Bishopsk 1.543 of Germanie and France, but of Ita∣lie also, and they swore that they would neuer receiue him for Pope againe.

In the Councell at Gerstungan,l 1.544, it was proo∣ued by the sacred Canons, yea, out of the great Nicene Councell, that Henry the Emperour (whom Hilde∣brand had deposed) neither was, nor ought to bee excommunicated: And the Bishops who disputed for Pope Hildebrand to iustifie his act, ita confusi sunt & deuicti, were so confounded and vanquished, that they had not any thing to answer, because the mouthes of them that spake wicked things were stopped.

In the Councell at Mentz held Anno 1079. it

was decreedm 1.545 that Hildebrand should de deposed.

In the Councell held at Brixian 1.546 ann. 1080 wherein were 30. Bishops with the Nobles both of Italie and Germanie, diiudicabant Gregorium depel∣lendum, they adiudged that Gregorie the seuenth, was to be deposed and put out of the Romane See, and they elected Guibert in his roome. The decree of the Councello 1.547 was this: Because it is manifest that Hildebrand was not chosen of God, but by fraud and simonie put himselfe into the See; and seeing he both subuerts Ecclesiasticall order, troubles the Kingdome and Empire, defends a periured King (Rodulph), sowes discord and strife among those that are pacificall; therefore we being now gathered toge∣ther, God being the author, do iudge, that he being a manifest Necromancer, led with an euill spirit, and exorbitant from the true faith, is canonically to bee deposed, expelled, and if he will not depart vpon the hearing hereof, in perpetuum condemnandum, is for euer to be condemned.

In a Councell at Mentzp 1.548 held ann. 1085. at which Guibert called Pope Clement the third, was present, all the Bishops who rebelled against the Em∣peror, deponendi iudicantur, were iudged to be depo∣sed; and all other who tooke part with Gregorie the seuenth, whom the Councell calles a traitor to the Kingdome and Ecclesiasticall peace, are accursed and anathematized.

In an other Councel at Mentzq 1.549 (for it seemes by many circumstances not to bee the same with the former) where were present the Emperor, Peter Bishop of Portua, the Legates of Clement the third,

Guibert (at the other himselfe was present:) many other Bishops both of Italie, France, and Germanie, communi omnium consensu Hildebrandi secta pietati Christianae repugnans, explosa & exsibilata est, the Hildebrandical sect, was exploded and hissed out, as being contrarie to Christian religion. Besides, Hermannus a king of Hildebrands making was pro∣scribed, and 14. Bishops of the Hildebrandicall sect were deposed and condemned for periurie, homicide, yea for treason in resisting their Emperour Henry, though deposed by Hildebrand.

In the Romane Councellr 1.550 held anno 1098. at S. Maries, in the Church called Rotunda, wherein were present three Cardinals, and diuers Italian Bi∣shops, they thus write; We will not haue you ignorant that we are assembled to destroy the heresies, nouiter ab Hildebrando inuentas, lately deuised by Hilde∣brand, and to defend the Catholike Faith; and a litle after, We call heauen and earth to witnesse, that we giue no consent to their peruersnesse; and for testimo∣nie hereof, in the midst of the Church, in the sight of men and Angels, incendio tradimus eorum decreta haeretica, we burne in the fire the hereticall decrees of Hildebrand and his adherents.

To these Synodall iudgements, let vs adde the consenting voice of others in that age, equall to a Synodall sentence. Pleriques 1.551 omnes boni, Almost all good, ingenuous, and plaine dealing men did write that the Empire of Antichrist did then beginne. Mostt 1.552 men, both publikely, and priuately, cryed out against the wickednesse of Gregory, they cursed him, and prayed for all ill to happen to him; they cryed out,

that he was caryed headlong with the desire of domi∣neering, they called him Antichrist; they said he sate in Babilon as in the Church of God, exalting himself aboue all that was called God, boasting that he like God could not erre. Further, that Hildebrand vnder the title of Christ, did orbis Imperium ambire, seeke to haue the Monarchy of the world: that he esteemes others who would not consent to his syco∣phansies and frauds, beasts, fooles, blockes and asses: that he bent all his strength to oppresse the leader of the flocke, that so the sheepe being destitute of the Em∣perors helpe, he might at libertie vse his tyrannie. That if all power be of God, most of all the Emperors, to whom the gouernment of the whole world is com∣mitted: that this nefarious and inexpiable crime of Hildebrand is to be driuen farre from the Germane nation, and Hildebrand is to be conquered not with words or disputations, but with fetters and imprison∣ment.

The Church of Leodium, writu 1.553 a large trea∣tise against the Pope, in which they call the Ro∣mane Church as then it was, Babylon; they prooue, that they owe obedience to the Emperour, notwith∣standing he were excommunicated by the Pope; they say of the Hildebrandists, that they did rent the church nouello schismate et nouellis traditionibus, by a new schisme, and new traditions, such as allow both disobedience and periurie: And concluding that point; By this, say they, all may perceiue, that he is reus capitis, guiltie of treason, and of death, who doth not obey Caesar (euen that Caesar whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated and deposed.)

They further adde, that Pope Hildebrand was au∣thor huius nouelli schismatis, the author of this new schisme, and the first that lifted vp his Pontificall launce, against the Crowne of the King, and who in∣discreetly excommunicated those that fauoured Hen∣rie, for which cause he afterwards reprooued his own rashnesse: and further, that all Popes from Grego∣rie the first vnto Hildebrand, vtebantur solo gladio spirituali, vsed onely the spiritual sword, he was the first who euer girded himselfe with the sword of bat∣tle against the Emperour.

The Deane and Church of Laurisham,x 1.554 writ thus to the Emperour, Summo post Dominum Regi, to the highest King next after God; They also complaine of the Noueltiesz 1.555 and Heresies which Hildebrand and Pascalis did maintaine, and entreat him to suppresse those heresies.

Rodolpha 1.556 the first to whom euer any Pope gaue the Kingdome of a deposed Emperour, at his death condemned both the Popes doctrine in this point, and with it his owne fact also. For hol∣ding vp the stumpe of his right hand (which he had lost in battle) loe, saith heb 1.557 with this did I sweare to my Lord (Henry,) not to hurt either him or his ho∣nour, but iussio Apostolica, the command of Pope Hildebrand hath brought me to this, that I haue bro∣ken my oath, and vsurped vnlawfull honour; you see my end, and how in that hand wherewith I sware, I haue receiued a deadly wound. Let those who insti∣gated me to this, consider how they haue guided mee, ••nd let them looke that wee both (they and I) be not carried headlong to eternall condemnation.

Pope Hildebrand* 1.558 himselfe was at last displea∣sed with this his owne doctrine, and with his do∣ings also in this matter: for at the time of his death (and note that he died in banishment at Salernum) he called, saith Matheus Parisi.d 1.559 some of the Car∣dinals vnto him and confessed vnto them, That he had greatly offended in his pastorall charge, & sua∣dente diabolo, and that at the suggestion of the diuell he had stirred vp the anger and wrath of God against mankinde. Sigibert who liued in that age, relatese 1.560 the same, as also Florentius Wigorniensis,f 1.561 who cites for a witnesse hereof the Archbishop of Mentz. Cuspinian also saithg 1.562, It is testified in vetu∣stissimis annalibus by the most ancient annales. Si∣giberth 1.563, and Florentius also adde, that Hilde∣brand sent his Confessour to the Emperour to aske forgiuenesse of him, and of the whole Church; relea∣sing* 1.564 all, both Emperour and others, from those bannes and curses which he had denounced against them. And if one may beleeue visions of those times, one of the Priests of Saxonyb 1.565, lying like a dead man in a trance for three daies, when hee came to himselfe, said, he then had a reuelation, that Hilde∣brand, Rodulph, and Hermannus were tormented in euerlasting punishment.

Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury, calles c 1.566 Henry the fourth, though deposed by Pope Hildebrand, gloriosum Imperatorem, a glorious Emperour, and withall addes, that he could not ob∣teine so great a victorie (against Rodulph) to whom the Pope had giuen the Empire) sine magno dei auxilio, without the great assistance of God;

whom yet the Bishop did not thinke to giue assi∣stance to vniust causes.

Gerochus, one who in those daies had writ most earnestly in defence of Hildebrand, at last seeing his pertinacie, writ in this mannerd 1.567: The Ro∣manes (to wit, Hildebrand with his faction) vsurpe Diuine honour, they will not giue a reason of their actions, nor doe they patiently endure that one should say to them, Cur ita facis: They ingeminate that of the Satyricall Poet, Sic volo, sic i••beo. This is my will; my will doth stand for a reason.

Venerius Bishop of Vercels, writ an whole booke against Hildebrand: In it hee thus saithe 1.568. Christ taught his Apostles, not to dispose of King∣domes, nor to order them, nay himselfe did not affect such a Kingdome, but fled from it. Wee reade Hilde∣brand to teach, quod potestatem habuerit super reges, that hee had power ouer Kings and ouer King∣domes, & that he might do that which the Psalmist saith belonges only to God, He puts downe one, and sets vp another. Hildebrand hath made a rent in the Church, whence are growne ciuill warres, slaughters, periuries, perfidious dealings, iniustice; these doe now flowe and super abound, propter doctrinam Hilde∣brandi Papae, by reason of the doctrine of Pope Hildebrand. Is it Apostolicall, is it Catholike, is it spiritual to take part with Hildebrand, to nourish and defend such crimes?

Conrad Bishop of Traiectum in an open assem∣bly said,f 1.569 Hildebrand is carried headlong with ambition, seeing he vsurpes the power of the immor∣tall God.

Osbertus Bishop of Leodium speaking of Hil∣debrand saith,g 1.570 Quae dementia, what madnesse hath armed you against the King and gouernour of the world? your malignant coniuration will not pro∣fit you. Whom God hath setled in the Kingdome, your hand can not cast him out.

The Bishop of Triers,h 1.571 This Hildebrand, who inuadeth the Apostolicke See, who is puft vp with such pride as hath not beene heard off, who studies prophanes nouelties, and is delighted with an ample name, I know not how to call him a Christian, seeing he hath not that Character, namely peace and chari∣tie which Christ hath imprinted in his Disciples. Ther's nothing so impious and nefarious, nothing so detestable and execrable which he regards, so that he may arme others against the King. I will not obey him hereafter, neither shall he by my iudgement sit in the seate of Peter, whom he doth not follow.

The Bishop of Virdunumi 1.572, Hildebrand who is called the head, iam est cauda ecclesiae, is now the taile of the Church; he who is called the foundation, is now the desolation of the Church; he who is said to gather, doth now scatter; he who is said to loue, doth now hate the Church; hee who is said to strengthen, doth now weaken the holy Church. O the Arrogan∣cie of him, who glorieth that hee is aboue the Church, doing wickedly aboue all malice, renting the Church, and which is vnheard of, presuming to de∣stroy the Catholike King (Henry the fourth, then deposed) condemning most wickedly those who are godly, peruerting the decrees of the fathers, aduan∣cing an adulterous King (Rodulph) indeuouring to

extinguish the true and lawfull King with all memo∣rie of the kingly name. Hee calles periurie fidelitie, faith he calles sacriledge, his father (the diuel) was a lier from the beginning, and himselfe lyeth in all things and contradicts the truth. Shall we call him our head, who is a wicked, an execrated man, who sub∣uerts the members of the Church?

Waltram Bishop of Medeburge, Let allk 1.573 bee confounded who resist the Lord; Rodulph, Hilde∣brand, Egbert and diuers others, Dei ordinationi in Henrico restiterunt, resisted Gods ordinance in resisting the Emperour Henry, and behold they are perished, as if they had not beene; and truly their be∣ginning must needs be euill, whom so bad an end did follow.

Waltram Bishop of Naumberg hath writ two books against the impieties of Hildebrand. Certum estl 1.574 its certaine saith hee, that Pope Hildebrand hath attempted to violate the Sacred Scripture and the commandements of God: he hathm 1.575 mingled himselfe with the deathes of many Christians, kind∣ling the fire of warre almost through the whole Em∣pire, The Bishopsn 1.576 of Hildebrand, corporum simul & animarum sunt homicidae, are murderers both of bodies and soules, they are such as may deseruedly be called the Synagogue of Satan. The Churcho 1.577 hath no sword giuen vnto it, nisi gladium spiritus, but onely the sword of the Spirit: Hildebrandp 1.578 hath vsurped regall authoritie, against the ordination of God, and against the vse & discipline of the Church. He hath vsurped the offices of both powers, temporall

and Ecclesiasticall, he hath maruellously resisted the ordinance of God: yea he plainly calsq 1.579 this do∣ctrine of Hildebrand an Heresie, Magna est haeresis Dei ordinationi resistere. Its a great heresie to resist Gods ordinance, which it is manifest that these Bi∣shops of Hildebrand haue done, when they went about to destroy Henry the King placed by God.

Pope Leo the ninth, Rome hath brought vp and nourished Constantine,* 1.580 & super omnes mortales con∣stituit, and set him aboue all mortall men; then sure aboue the Pope.

Petrus Damianusr 1.581; The offices belonging to Bi∣shops and Kings are proper to each of them, the King is to vse secular weapons, Bishops the sword of the Spirit. Ozias was smitten with leprosie for vsurping the Priests office, what then doth the Priest deserue if he take secular weapons which are proper to lay men? Which words are so pregnant against the Papall Monarchy,* 1.582 that Baronius taxeth Damianus as He∣reticall, for this saying.

Oecumeniuss 1.583, The Apostle instructeth euery soule, though he be a Bishop or an Apostle (then much more the Pope) to be subiect to secular Princes.

Theophilactt 1.584: Vniuersos erudit, the Apostle tea∣cheth all, yea though he be an Apostle (then sure the Apostles successors) that they be subiect to secular Princes.

Anselme Archbishop of Canterburyu 1.585. There are two swords in the Church, the one materiall, the other spirituall; and there are secular Ministers, to

whom belongs the handling of temporall matters: and spirituall to whom spirituall matters doe belong: the temporall sword is giuen to carnall (that is, secu∣lar) men, the spirituall to spirituall persons: as the King may not intermeddle with the priestly stole, so neither may a Bishop exercise that which belongs to the King.

Iuo Bishop of Carnotumx 1.586. The disposing of secu∣lar matters is giuen to the King, and they are funda∣mentum & Caput populi, the foundation and head of the people, and where they will not obey the ad∣monitions of Bishops, diuino iudicio sunt reseruandi, they are to be left to Gods iudgement. Then is not the Pope as a superiour Lord to iudge, punish, or depose them.

Glaber Rodulphusz 1.587. At this time the Romane See was miserably infected with a pestiferous disease, for the space of 25. yeeres; they ordained a Pope a∣bout 12. yeeres olde, whom onely siluer and gold did commend more then either age or sanctitie: but as hee had an vnhappie beginning, so he had an vnhappie end, for hee was deposed by the Emperour with the consent of the whole Romane Cleargie, and a most holy man put in his roome. Glaber approouing this act of the Emperour, shewes plainly hee thought the Pope tobe subiect to Imperiall authority, and iudgement.

Sigiberta 1.588: This Noueltie, that I say not Heresie, was not before this time sprung vp in the world, that Priests should teach the people that they owght no o∣bedience to wicked Kings, and that though they

sweare fidelitie vnto them, yet they owe not fidelitie, and are not periured, if they disobey their King. Hil∣debrand euen in this doctrine is by him accounted an author of Noueltie and Heresie.

Thus was this Hildebrandicall doctrine no o∣therwise entertained at the very first arising there∣of, and euer since, then as a noueltie, a schismati∣call, a seditious, a pernitious and pestilent heresie. It is true, I confesse, that the Imperialists also who in this and the succeeding ages defended the right of Emperours against the then challenged and v∣surped Papall Monarchy, were, and that euen eo nomine* 1.589 because they were faithfull loyall and obedi∣ent to Emperours, both accounted and called He∣retikes by the Hildebrandists, or adherents to to the Pope. But the name of Heretikes being by either part giuen vnto the other both then and euer since, yet there is a maine difference in the veritie of this Appellation. The sentence and censure of the Pope in this and following ages, was for this point but the partiall and vniust sen∣tence of some factious, seditious and schismaticall Hildebrandists, condemned by the Vniforme and consenting iudgement of the whole Catholike Church in all the seuerall ages thereof, till the daies of Hildebrand. The sentence and censure of the Imperialists was for this point the Ortho∣doxall and consenting iudgement of holy Coun∣cels and of the Catholike fathers for more then a thousand yeeres together after Christ. If they obiect, that some of the witnesses whom in this

or succeeding ages we produce, were accounted Heretikes, we iustly reply, that those also whom they produce against vs, in this cause, were ac∣counted Heretikes. Either by the iudgement of the other, was counted and called Hereticall, and so neither of both since this rent in the Church made by Hildebrand, is an equall or fit iudge of the other. The vnpartiall Iudgement in this cause must proceede from the former, ancient, and con∣senting voice of the Church before it was rent or diuided in this question. And seeing with the Im∣perialists in this point wholly concurres, and from the Hildebrandists wholly dissents the consenting voice and iudgement of the Catholike Church in all the former ages thereof, that is, for more then 1000. yeeres together, it is an euident demonstra∣tion, that the Imperialists, and those who are wit∣nesses on our part, in this doctrine, both in truth are, and are by all others to be accounted and cal∣led Orthodoxall; and that the Hildebrandists and those who are witnesses on their part, in this do∣ctrine, both in truth are, and are by all others to bee accounted and called Hereticall.

CHAP. VII.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy was condem∣ned by Bishops, and learned writers, who liued from the yeere 1100. to the yeere 1200.

IN the twelfth age,* 1.590 there was held about anno 1107. Con∣cilium Tircense (perhaps it should bee Trecense.) In it a 1.591 the Emperour Henry the fift, complained that the Im∣periall rights were impaired by the Pope. The matter-beeing deferred till the Emperour came to his Coronati∣on in Italie (which was about a yeere after) then, as Petr. Diaconus, who then liued, declares, one of the Emperours part, seeing how Pope Pascalis protracted the Coronation, and required a stricter oath, then seemed fit, saidb 1.592 Quid multis opus est, what needs all this doing? know that our Lord the Emperour will so take the Crowne as Charles, Lewis and Pipine tooke it; And that wasc 1.593 to haue the inuestiture of Bishops, and all other Royalties and Imperiall rights which Charles and other Emperors had for 300. yeeres and more; yea the Emperour, saith Alb. Stadensisd 1.594 would not sweare, but said (and said most rightly) Imperatorem nemini debere iurare, that the Emperour was not bound to sweare vnto any man, seeing to him as supreame, all others are to exhibite the sacrament of their oathes. When the

Pope would not accept of that oath, theye 1.595 thrust him from his throne, tooke him prisoner with diuers Cardinals, and others that tooke part with the Pope, and carried them to Sorecte: where the Pope was kept in prison for the space of 61. daies. In the end the Pope yeelded, and (swore,f 1.596, that he would ne∣uer either disturbe the Emperour or his Empire, as violating the Churches right, neither anathematize him for thus vsing the Pope: and further that hee would priuilegio sub anathemate confirmare, con∣firme by a priuiledge and that vnder a curse (and so he didg 1.597 in the sight of all) that the Emperour should enioy the inuestitures of Bishops and Abbots, and that whosoeuer were chosen for a Bishop, should be consecrated of none vnlesse he were inuested by the Emperour. The Emperour on the other side (sworeh 1.598 (in such forme as he before had offered and the Pope had refused) that hee would obey the Pope, saluo honore Imperii & regni, alwaies sauing the honour of the Empire and Kingdome, as other i 1.599 Emperours were vsed to sweare. So both the Em∣perour knew and the Pope acknowledged, and that vpon his oath, the Soueraigntie and Royal∣ties to belong vnto the Emperour. You will say, the Pope did this in feare and by constraint. It is true he was by iust punishment induced vnto it. And none must euer thinke that Popes without such strong inducements, will euer doe any right to Kings or Emperours. But had the Pope thought those Royalties not to be in right belon∣ging to the Emperour, why did he at all consent vnto it? why did he not endure, I say not impri∣sonment,

but death for a righteous cause? Si ho∣mines timerentur, Martyres non essent. All Prin∣ces may see by this, how to haue right at the Popes hand. If Popes once ouermaster them, they will be sure to do as this same Pascalis did: as soone as the Emperour was gone, and the danger ouer∣past, the Pope in a Synode in the Laterane, recal∣ledk 1.600 that his owne former grant, made with an im∣precation, vttered before the holy Altar, in the sight of all the Princes, and said, it was Prauilegium not Pri∣uilegium: and contrarie to his oath of not distur∣bing the Emperour nor his Empire, (for assurance whereof hel 1.601 had giuen and receiued the holy Eucharist) the Councell then decreed,m 1.602 that the Emperour was to be excommunicated and shut out of the Church, and the Popen 1.603 published and thunde∣red out an excommunication against the Emperour, set all the Empire in an vprore and combustion; nor was Pascalis and his successours euer at quiet, till they had forcedo 1.604 Henry (as in the time of Calyx∣tus they did) to resigne and deliuer vp the Priuiledge granted by Pascalis, and compelled him to yeeld the Inuestitures of Bishops into the Popes hands. But such coacted resignation, could not take away ei∣ther from that Henry, or from any of his succes∣sours, those Imperiall rights, which belong to their Crowne and which they ought, euen by the words of their vsuall oath, Saluo honore Imperii, still to maintaine.

There was held anno 1160. a Councell at Pa∣pia, (it may, in regard of the Bishops of so many prouinces assembled therein, be called a generall

Councell) to determine whether Octauian called Victor, or Rowland called Alexander the third, was the right Pope. The Emperour Fridericke the first called it, and writ thus,b 1.605 Whereas Christ at his passion was contented with two swords, this is fulfilled in the Romane Church (for the one) and in the Romane Empire (for the other.) And, wee by the counsell of all our Bishops and Princes haue ap∣pointed a Councel at Papia, vnto which vocabimus, we will call both those that tearme themselues Popes, and all other Bishops in our Empire, as also of other Kingdomes, France, England, Spaine and Hungarie. And to Rowland who was called Alexander, hee writ, Mandamusc 1.606 we command and charge you in the name of God to come to this Councell. When the Councell was assembled the Emperour thus be∣gan: Althoughd 1.607 I know that by the office and dig∣nitie of my Empire I haue power to call Councels, as Constantine, Theodosius, Iustinian, Charles the Great, and O tho haue done before; yet the authoritie to de∣fine this great and weightie businesse, committo pote∣stati vestrae, I commit to your wisedome and pow∣er. The whole Councell adiudgede 1.608 the See to Octauianus, the Emperour ratified their iudge∣ment, placed him in the Pontificall throne. And yet (so exorbitant are their Popes) notwithstan∣ding this so ample, so diligent, and exact exami∣nation and Synodall iudgement, Rowland (whom they truly calledf 1.609 an Idoll) without any right at all, inuaded and held the See, and euer after bare so implacable hatred to Friderick, for doing no∣thing but iustice, and that in most equall manner,

that he could neuer be at quiet, till at Venice, he had trampled* 1.610 him vnder his feete, telling him that he was subiect, Et mihi & Petro.

When Pope Hadrian the fourth, in his quarrell against Fridericke the first, had writg 1.611 to the Bi∣shops of Germanie, to mooue the Emperour to yeeld to him, and had inserted in his letters, those words at which the Emperour tooke great indignation, Coronae beneficium tibi contulimus, wee haue giuen vnto you the Imperiall Crowne; as if the Empire and the Imperiall Crowne, were at the Popes dis∣posing, to giue to whom hee would; the Bishops writh 1.612 backe to the Pope in this manner: A ver∣bis vestris commota est vniuersa resp. Imperii nostri, all our common weale and Empire, were so moo∣ued by those your words, that neither the eares of his imperiall Maiestie could patiently heare them, nor the eares of the Princes endure them, therefore all stopped their eares at those words, so that we consensu aliquo approbare nec audemus, nec possumus, neither dare, nor can by any consent approoue them, be∣cause they are such as were neuer vsed nor heard of till these times; & we beseech your Holiness, that like a good Pastor, you would send other letters, priora scripta suauitate mellita dulcorantibus, which may soften and sweeten your former writings.

There was about the same time, a very famous assembly at Roncalia,i 1.613 wherein were many Archbishops and Bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons, besides Dukes, Marquisses, Earles, and Iudges of the Empire. Vnak 1.614 omnium sententia haec erat, this was the sentence and iudgement of

them all. Thou O most excellent Prince art Orbis & vrbis Imperator, Emperour of the Citie of Rome, and of the World. It pleased you to consult with vs the loyall people of your power, concerning the lawes, iustice and honour of the Empire; therefore know, that the whole right of the people for making of lawes is granted vnto you. Tua voluntas ius est, your will is law, according as it is said, Quod princi∣pi placuit legis habet vigorem, that which pleaseth the Emperour hath force of a law. Could they giue vnto him an higher Soueraigntie?

Pope Pascalis the second, anno 1110. thus de∣creed, c 1.615 We command that those Royalties which belong to the Emperour, be resigned vnto King Hen∣ry (the fifth) which belonged vnto the Empire in the time of Charles, Lewis, Otho, and other their prede∣cessours; and we forbid vnder the paine of an Ana∣thema, that any Bishop, or Abbot either now or here∣after, doe inuade those Royalties, that is, those Cities, Dukedomes, Marquisates, Counties, monies, tolles, or tribute, Aduowsans, Towers, and Castles which be∣long to the Empire; neither shall it be lawfull for our successors in this See, to disquiet either thee or thy Kingdome in this matter. Now the supreame Do∣minion and royalties in Rome, and throughout all Italie, did certainely belong to Charles (as wee haue formerly prooued): then by the Popes de∣cree, the Emperours are for euer to be held for the Supreame Lords of the same.

Pope Innocentius the third, in one of his decre∣tals defineth,d 1.616 That though in his owne Patrimo∣nie he be a direct Lord, yet in other countries he doth

exercise that iurisdiction but casually, not preiudica∣ting the right of others; which words are so cleere that though they wrest them neuer so much, yet still they will demonstrate the Pope, euen by the Popes decree, not to be a direct temporall Monarch of the world.

Pope Celestine the third,e 1.617 If a Clearke be incorri∣gible he must be excommunicated, and then smitten with the sword of Anathema; if he contemne that, cum Ecclesia non habeat vltra quid faciat, seeing the Church can goe no further (but to the censure of Anathema,) he must be punished by secular power.

The Senate and people of Rome write vnto Conrade the Emperour, anno 1140. in this manner, * 1.618 Vrbis & orbis Domino, to thee, Lord both of Rome and of the world: and they tell him, that they desire to restore the Romane Empire which is gi∣uen to him by God, vnto that state wherein it was in the time of Constantine and Iustinian, qui totum or∣bem tenuere manibus, who had the whole world subiect vnto them; wishing that the Rebels and those who haue taken away the honour of the Empire, being troden vnder feete, he may obtaine all things which are due to Caesar, and the Empire: praying him to remember, quot & quanta mala Papalis Curia, how great and how many wrongs the Popes Court, and those which sometimes were your citizens, haue for∣merly done to the Emperours, and doe now attempt to doe worse; but we, say they, haue iustly resisted them according to our fidelitie, and haue expelled many of them out of the Citie as the worst enemies to the Em∣pire.

The Bishops of Germanie writf 1.619 thus vnto the Pope claiming the Empire to be his gift, and at his disposing: Wee willingly yeeld fatherly reue∣rence vnto you our father. The free crowne of our Empire diuino tantùm beneficio ascribimus, we ascribe onely to the gift of God. The Bishop of Mentz hath the first voice in the election, and so the rest in order; the Bishop of Colen conferres regall, the Pope imperiall vnction, whatsoeuer is more then this, ex abundanti est, a malo est, it is superabundant, it is from euill. And that which they account to bee more, is the Popes pretence of giuing the Empire with the crowne and vnction.

That the Greeke Church* 1.620 in this age, held not the Pope for a supreame Monarch, may be per∣ceiued by that which Humbertusg 1.621 witnesseth of them, that they not only detested the pope & accounted the Romane Church to be hereticall, but further vrged them both, to receiue their opinions vnder the paine of an Anathema. Yea, long after this they would not suffer* 1.622 their Emperour Michael Paleologus to haue Christian buriall, because in a Councell at Lions, he had professed the Greeke Church to be subiect to the Romane See.

Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, ha∣uing alleadged many Canons why Cleargie men should not vndertake ciuill Magistracie and secu∣lar affaires, at length expoundsh 1.623 them all to bee so vnderstood, that they may not doe this sine iussu Imperatoris without a command and commission from the Emperour, for if they doe it by the Empe∣rours allowance, the Canons doe not forbid them: see∣ing

the Emperour is neither subiect to lawes nor Ca∣nons. Againe,i 1.624 Note this seuenth Canon, wherein it is said that spirituall dignities are more excellent then secular. Sed ne hoc eò traxeris, but do not straine this, saith he, so farre as some do, that Ecclesiasticall dignities are aboue Imperiall, eis enim subiiciuntur, for Ecclesiasticall dignities are subiect to Impe∣riall.

Athanasius Patriarch of Constantinople, spea∣king to the Emperour saith,k 1.625 Curam omnium su∣scepisti a Deo, you haue the charge of all (and then of the Pope) committed vnto you by God.

Euthymius,l 1.626 Seeing I am a King, I haue offended onely to thee O God, tibi soli iudici subiicior, I am subiected to thee onely as a Iudge of mee.

Saint Bernard is so cleere in this point, that hee m 1.627 expressely denies that the Pope or any who is a successor to the Apostles, can haue that supreame and independent temporall dominion. Planum est, Apostolis interdicitur dominatus, It is plaine, Do∣minion (independent) is forbidden to the Apo∣stles. If you succeed the Apostles, you vsurpe that dominion: you are cleerely forbidden to haue them both, if you will haue them both you shall loose them both.

Hugo de Sancto victorep 1.628. The terrene power hath the King for head, the spirituall power hath the Pope. Terrene or temporall matters belong to the power of the King, those which are spirituall belong to the power of the Pope: and,q 1.629 Hugo tenet, Hugo holds this conclusion, that the Emperour for tempo∣rall

matters hath his power onely from God, neither in those is subiect to the Pope. Again, Hugo saith* 1.630 that the Pope is greater then the Emperour in spirituall, but the Emperour greater then the Pope in temporall matters: and he further saith, that the Emperour doth not take the power of the sword and temporall dignitie from the Pope.

Petrus Cluniacensis,r 1.631 You will say, The Church hath not a sword, seeing Christ commanded Peter to put vp his sword; It is true, It is true I say, Ecclesia non habet gladium regis, sed habet virgam pastoris, the Church hath not the sword of a King (not the ciuill and temporall sword) but it hath the rod or staffe of a shepheard.

Petrus Gratianus* 1.632 the Master of their decrees; Note that there are two persons whereby the world is gouerned, the Regall, and Sacerdotall. As Kings are the chiefe in secular causes, so are Bishops in the cau∣ses of God. It is the office of Kings to inflict corpo∣rall, the office of Bishops to vse spirituall punishment.

Peter Lombards 1.633 Bishop of Paris, and their Master of sentences, Wee must know that those words of the Apostle, He that resisteth the power re∣sists the ordination of God, are meant of secular powers, to wit, of Kings and Princes, whom we may not resist while those things which they command are such as God doth not forbid. Now seeing that precept concernes euery soule, as the text expres∣seth, (euen the Apostles themselues and their suc∣cessors, as we haue before prooued,) the Pope by this Bishops iudgement, may not resist, but ought in all lawfull commands, obey secular Princes; for

the conclusion of the Master, saith Henry Gori∣con* 1.634 vpon that text is this, Quod semper obedien∣dum est potestati, that men must alwaies obey secular power vnlesse they command against God.

Petrus Blesensis,t 1.635 Let the Church first exercise her iurisdiction, and if that will not suffice, then let the secular sword supply that which wanteth. (u) To Princes is the sword giuen, Animabus praelatus es non corporibus, you are set ouer mens soules, not their bodies. A prelate and pilate haue nothing common. Againex 1.636, to another Bishop, You being chosen for a Bishop, sanguinolenta potestate exerces gladii potesta∣tem, doe with a bloodie conscience vse the power of the secular sword; let him exercise the materiall sword who hath receiued the power of that sword. Secular powers are ordained of God that they should haue that sword. If you take Christs ministery, abide in that vocation to which you are called: dimittas laicis populi principatum, leaue the rule or ciuill go∣uernment of the people to Lay-men.

Iohannes Sarisburiensisy 1.637 Bishop of Carno∣tum, though hee bee violent in the Popes cause, yet saith, Deus solus arbitrio suo regna & Imperia transfert, God alone (then not the Pope) doth at his pleasure translate kingdomes, hee sets vp, hee pulles downe what powers he will.

Geruasius* 1.638 Archbishop of Rhemes writes thus to Pope Alexander the second, It is reason that wee of France should honour the successour of Peter, seeing out of our kingdome Rome did chuse (Charles the Great) quem sibi & mundo caput ordi∣naret, whom it ordained the head both of Rome

and the world (then head also of the Pope, vnlesse he were none of the world.)

Ioachim Abbasf 1.639 of whom Posseuine saith, g 1.640 that many beleeued him to haue had the spirit and gift of prophesie, saith, Though secular Princes haue taken somewhat by force from the Church, yet the Popes on the other side haue taken much from secular princes, which they neither should haue sought nor haue receiued; and to this purpose Christ saith, Giue to Caesar that which is Caesars, but because their couetous prelates will not hearken to this word, they shall bee burst like old bottles; and handling those words, As an Asse so shall he be buried, those (Romane) Pre∣lates, saith he* 1.641, are truly Asses and fooles, and there∣fore they shall lie open to their enemies: And as from an asse is first puld his skinne, and then hee is cast to the dunghill to be meat for beasts and birds, so shall first be pulled from those prelates the skinnes of their temporall possessions, and then shall they be cast as a mocking stocke, on the dunghill, and be as meate for the beasts of the Romane Empire and birds, that is Euangelicall men who shall reprooue them. Againe, m 1.642 The Popes and prelates knew that those tempora∣lities which they desired, iuris esse Romani, did in right belong to the Romane Empire.

Eberharduso 1.643 Bishop of Babenberge, The part which followeth Alexander the third, doth goe to the enemies of the Empire, which seemes to bee a∣gainst wholsome doctrine, and they both loose men from their oath of fidelitie, and forbid them to obey the Emperour, and so make way for schisme which is the worst of all.

Othop 1.644 Frisingensis, a man noble both for birth, pietie, & learning. Whereas there is no other person in the world which is not subiect to temporall lawes, and by being subiect to them may be punished, soli re∣ges, onely Kings as being aboue lawes are reserued to the iudgement of God, and are not restrained by se∣cular lawes, Then are they not subiect either to the Popes iudgement or punishment.

Helmoldus,q 1.645 Dauid siuning & repenting, remai∣ned still a King and a Prophet; Henry the fourth, lying prostrate at the Popes feete intreating and re∣penting, was gratis pessundatus, without cause de∣pressed and crushed. Henry found not that in the time of grace which Dauid found in the hard time of the law, But let others who dare, dispute hereof, this one thing may be knowne, that the Romane See, luit factum illud, doth to this day smart for that fact.

Gotofridus Viterbiensis,y 1.646 Before this of Grego∣rie, we doe not reade that any Emperour was excom∣municated by the Pope or depriued of his kingdome, such a noueltie he noteth that fact of Hildebrands to haue beene. He also notes that the cause of all those broiles betwixt Henry the fourth and Hilde∣brand, wasz 1.647 for that Hildebrand tooke the Pope∣dome sine concessione Imperatoris without the grant of the Emperour. Thereby giuing to vnder∣stand, that as Hildebrand vniustly entred into the See, so he thought hee could not hold it but by depressing and oppressing him, by whose grant he should haue held it, and without whose grant hee did not rightly hold: it and that the whole quar∣rell arose neither for any fault of Henry, nor zeale

of Hildebrand, either to God or to the Church, but it began vpon Hildebrands owne vndutifulnes and vnlawfull intrusion, and was continued for maintaining his vniust and vsurped possession. So holy a quarrell beseemed so holy a Saint.

CHAP. VIII.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by Bishops, and learned writers, who liued from the yeere 1200. to the yeere 1300. after Christ.

IN the thirteenth age,* 1.648 when first Gregory the nintha 1.649 and after him Innocentius the fourth, in the Councell of Lions, had excommunicated b 1.650 Fredericke the second, and deposed him propriac 1.651 au∣thoritate, by their owne Pa∣pall authoritie, and not by the iudgement and au∣thoritie of the Councell, diuers Princesd 1.652 whom those Popes sollicited, yea, vnder paine of excommu∣nication commanded, not to accept or account Fre∣dericke for Emperour, answered first Gregorie and then Innocentius in this manner; Ad papam non pertinere Imperatorem vel instituere vel destituere, sed tantum electum a principibus coronare, that it belonged not to the Pope either to make or vn∣make an Emperour, but onely to crowne him whom the Electors had chosen.

When Pope Innocentius the third, had sent an

excommunicationd 1.653 and interdict against the Pre∣lates and Barons in England, who resisted King Iohn, or sought to put him (being then as Innocent calles e 1.654 him the Popes vassall) from his kingdom; the Baronsf 1.655 and Prelates being assembled together, di∣cebant generaliter omnes, did all with one generall consent say, that those letters were of no force at all, partly for that they were (as they pretended) gotten by surreption, & ex hoc maximè, and specially for this reason, because the ordering of Laicall or Tem∣porall matters, belonged not to the Pope, seeing vnto Peter, and his successours non nisi Ecclesiasticarum rerum dispositio, the disposing onely of Ecclesia∣sticall affaires was giuen by Christ; what haue Popes say they, to doe with our warres? Behold they will be the successours of Constantine, and not of Peter. They imitate not Peter in workes, they are not to bee likened to him in power. Phy on it, that marcidi ri∣baldi, base ribalds, and ignoble Simoniackes (so they tearme Popes) who know nothing of warre, and wea∣pons, iam toti mundo propter excommunicationes suas volunt dominari, will needs dominere ouer the whole world, by sending out their Excommu∣nications and Interdicts. How vnlike are they to Peter who vsurpe the place of Peter!

Pope Innocentius the fourthg 1.656, In temporall things solus Imperator qui vniuersis & Clericis & laicis in temporalibus praeesse debet, priuilegium con∣cedere potest, the Emperour onely who in tempo∣rall matters ought to bee aboue all both Laicall and Ecclesiasticall persons, (then sure aboue the Pope himselfe) can grant a priuiledge in temporall

matters. Eberherdus Abusinus,h 1.657 If wee bee not blinde, we may perceiue that vnder the title of the high priest and vnder a sheepes skinne, the pope playes the woolfe. The Romane Bishops take weapons against Christians, banish Vnitie and Concord, raise vp warres and sedition from hell, they doe not prouide for the good of the flocke, sed potius immanitate ty∣ranni debacchantur, but rather they are inraged with tyrannous crueltie. They violate holy things, abuse the couenant of God to deceiue men, they com∣mand men to deceiue, to warre, to bee treacherous, to resist the sacred Maiestie ordained by God. Hilde∣brand about 170. yeeres since, vnder the colour of re∣ligion, primus Antichristi imperii fundamenta iecit, first of all founded the Empire of Antichrist. Alexander Halensis, That which Saint Peter saith,* 1.658 The King excelles, is true in suo ordine, scilicet ad corporalem vindictam, true in his order, that is, for inflicting secular punishment: in doing whereof if he offend, non habet qui eum puniat nisideum, he hath none at all but God (then not the Pope) to punish him. And againe,k 1.659 The terrene power hath the King for head, the spirituall hath the Pope. Nichol. Lyranusl 1.660 In that he was a King, non habuit superi∣orem, qui possit eum punire nisi Deum, he had none, but onely God to punish him for his faults. A∣quinas,m 1.661 A Prince is said to be solutus legibus, free from the lawes, quia nullus in ipsum potest condem∣nationis sententiam ferre, because none, (then not the Pope) may pronounce a sentence of condem∣nation against him.

Conrad Abbot of Vrspergep 1.662 speaking of the

Popes deposing of Emperors, saith; Though popes doe glorie that they haue done this, yet I obserue that these things were rather done to Emperours by the iudgement of God for the sinnes of those Emperours, the Princes and people ioyning their mindes to make resistance vnto them. And how ineffectuall hee e∣steemes the Popes act of deposing, Emperours ap∣peares by that which he addes,q 1.663 that Fridericke was excommunicated by Pope Hadrian and Alexan∣der, yet he neuer lost his Empire; so Philip the sonne of Fridericke, though pope Celestine excommunica∣ted him, nunquam perdidit imperium, yet for all that he lost not his Empire. Againe, entreating of Pope Hadrians excommunicating Fridericke, hee calles itr 1.664 a conspiracie of the Pope and Cardinals; addinges 1.665 that God was not pleased with that fact but brought that curse vpon them, which is foretold by Dauid: They curse, but thou O Lord wilt blesse; let them that rise against me be confounded, but thy seruant shall reioyce. This, saith he, was most euident∣ly fulfilled in this businesse; for to the end that this propheticall speech might bee fulfilled, the foresaid Pope Hadrian a few daies after he had denounced ex∣communication against the Emperour, walked a∣broad at Anagnia to refresh himselfe, and comming to a fountaine, hee dranke a little of the water; and presently a flie entred into his mouth, and stucke so in his throate, that by no skill of Phisitions, it could bee taken away, and so he died. The Cardinals also who were of that conspiracie, at their election of the next Pope, made such a grieuous schisme in the Church, that Roma cum suis conspiratoribus mansit in con∣fusione,

Rome with her conspirators (against the Emperour) remained in confusion, and so in them we see it to be fulfilled which was spoken by the Pro∣phet, Let those that rise against me be confounded: but in the Emperour was fulfilled the other saying, Thy seruant shall reioyce. Guntherust 1.666 speaking of the Imperiall power saith:

Nullum caput ista super 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Aspicit excepto Coelorum rege potestas, Imperiall dignitie hath none aboue it, but onely the King of heauen: then certainly not the Pope. Vpon which words Spigelius the Scholiast obserues, That if one should say so at this day, as Gunther then did, haeretici nomen non effugeret, he would be counted an he∣reticke by the Popes flatterers: and whereas Gunthe∣rus addes, letu 1.667 the Pope gouerne the Church, and order diuine not secular matters, the same Scholiast obserues, that this is indeed consonant to Saint Pauls precept, No man going a warfare for God, intangles himselfe in secular affaires; but withall he addes, that the Popes fauourers haue two answers to these words of Saint Paul; the one is, that the Pope is not ty∣ed by the words or precept of the Apostle, Quoniam inferior non habet imperium in superiorem, because the Apostle being inferiour hath no power to command the Pope who is his superiour. The o∣ther, that secular affaires do most properly belong to the Pope, because both swords are committed, and all power is giuen vnto him. Durandus* 1.668 approoues the saying of Pope Gelasius: There are two things by which the world is gouerned, papal authoritie, and

regall power. Now Gelasius, as wee haue before shewed, so distinguisheth these two, that as the Emperour may not take vpon him the name or office of a Bishop, so neither may the Pope Regale fastigium vendicare, take vpon him Regall or tem∣porall soueraigntie. Petrus de Vineis,y 1.669 It is no where read to be granted either by Diuine or humane law to the pope, to translate kingdomes at his plea∣sure, aut de puniendis temporaliter regibus iudicare, or to iudge of Kings, by inflicting temporall pu∣nishments vpon them in depriuing them of their kingdomes. Petrus Cassiodorusz 1.670 Is it not a mar∣uaile, that whereas Christ payd tribute for himselfe and Peter, and refused kingdomes, and secular iudge∣ments: that hee who calles himselfe Christs Vicar should striue to make subiect to his Dominion, Kings and kingdomes, and that contra voluntatem illius, against the will of Christ? Alexander named in scorne by the Popes fauourers Cementariusa 1.671, when Innocentius the third, had excommunicated King Iohn, boldly and truly taught at that time, (but he smarted for it after, as all martyrs haue done,) That it did not pertaine to the Pope de Regum vel quorumlibet potentum laica possessione, not to intermeddle with the temporall possessions of Kings, and other Potentates, nor with the gouern∣ment of their subiects, seeing Christ gaue to Peter nothing but onely the power of the Church, and Ec∣clesiasticall matters. Rainerius Pisanus,b 1.672 The se∣cular power, non habet aliquod dominium supra se, quod cum puniat poena vel vindicta corporali, hath no dominion aboue it which may punish it with

ciuill, or corporall punishment. Vincentius Belua∣censis c 1.673 speaking of Hildebrands facts and do∣ctrine, calles it a Noueltie, and almost an Heresie, which till then neuer sprang vp in the world, that men should be taught not to obey wicked Kings, and that they owe no fidelitie vnto them, though they haue taken the oath of fidelitie. This was the verie doctrine and heresie of Hildebrand.

Iohan. Semeca,* 1.674 that excellent lawyer (who first made a glosse vpon the Decrees,) not onely opposed himselfe to Pope Clement the fourth, in that exaction of tenths for redemption of the Holy land, but when the Pope had for that cause excommu∣nicated him, appellationem opposuit, he appealed from the Pope, and had many great men in Germa∣nie to take his part. The Lawyer belike knew some higher Iudge then the Pope.

Accursiusf 1.675 the famous Lawyer; It is plaine that nec papa in temporalibus, neither may the Pope intermeddle in temporall affaires, nor the Emperour with spirituall. Iohannes de Parisiis g 1.676 hath writ a large and learned booke of the Re∣gall and Papall power. There are, saith he, two con∣trarie errors touching the pontificall power. The Wal∣denses condemne all wealth and all secular dominion (though delegated) vnto Bishops. The other error is Herods, who thought Christs kingdome to be terrene and secular; which opinion some in these daies em∣brace, who so much decline the errour of the Wal∣denses, that they fall to the quite contrarie errour. Their errour is, that the Pope in Christs steed hath dominion and iurisdiction in temporall matters, yea,

dominion aboue secular Kings and Princes, because the Pope hath his power immediately from God, and Princes haue theirs from the Pope: whereupon they say, that solus papa est verus dominus temporalium, the Pope is the onely true Lord of all temporall goods, Princes and others they are but dispensatores, stewards of them vnder the Pope. This opinion, saith he, sprung from the errour of Herod, and sa∣uours of the errour of Vigilantius: it partakes also with that pernicious doctrine of the Pharisies, who to the end the people might giue greater oblations to them, taught, non teneri populum ad censum redden∣dum Caesari, that the people were not bound to pay tribute and duties to Caesar. But what is your owne iudgement in this matter? Hee following a saying, which he cites out of Austen, Fides medi∣um tenet inter duos errores contrarios, saith, Veritas medium ponit, Truth is in the middle betweene those two errours; for Ecclesiasticall persons may haue temporall dominion, against the Waldenses: and they haue it not as being Vicars to Christ, but ex concessione & permissione principum, by the grant, permission and delegation of Princes. And intreatingh 1.677 whether secular or Ecclesiasticall power is more worthy, his resolution is, That in spirituall matters the Ecclesiasticall power is more excellent, but in temporall matters the secular power maior est potestate spirituali, is greater then spiritu∣all; neither is it quoad ista in aliquo subiecta, in re∣spect of secular matters in any sort subiect to the spirituall: and he giues this which is a true reason hereof, Because the temporall power is not deriued

from the spirituall but they both immediatè oriuntur a potestate diuina, doe spring from the supreame power of God and that immediately. And hauing i 1.678 prooued that Christ as man had not this secular dominion, he adds,k 1.679 Dato quod Christus, Let vs suppose that Christ had such secular power and do∣minion, yet he gaue it not to Peter, & ideo Papae ra∣tione qua est Petri successor non debetur, and there∣fore it is not due to the Pope as he is the successor of Peter. And this at large he prooues.

CHAP. IX.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by Bishops, and learned writers, who liued from the yeere 1300. to the yeere 1400. after Christ.

IN the foureteenth age,a 1.680 Philip the Faire, called a Councellb 1.681 of the Bishops and Peeres of France, after Boniface the 8. had depriued him of his Kingdome, and forbidden a∣ny of his Subiects to yeeld obedience vnto him: The whole Councell, notwithstanding the Popes ex∣communication and deposition, resolued, That the King, sine controuersia iure illa omnia tenere, did rightly and without doubt possesse his Kingdome and Dominions.

Pope Iohn 22. anno 1323. had excommunicated and deposed (as much as in him lay) the Emperor

Lewis of Bauare, denouncing him, and his adhe∣rents to be heretikes; the Emperour thereupon called a Councell:c 1.682 the Popes proceedings were examined by men learned both in the Ciuil & Canon law, iudicabant eos penitus non valere, their iudge∣ment was, that the Popes doings were of no force at all, yea many and great Diuines approoued both for their life and doctrine, dogmatizabant Iohannem Papam esse haereticum, did dogmatically define Pope Iohn to be an hereticke. Thus writeth Her∣manusd 1.683 who then liued.

An other Assemblye 1.684 was held at Trent by the same Emperour Lewis, anno 1327. vnto which were assembled both many* 1.685 Bishops and prelates, and many great personages of Millane, of Mantua, Verone, and other Italian States. These princes Sa∣cramenta fidelitatis praestiterunt, tooke the oath of fidelitie to obey Lewis. The Bishopsg 1.686 they taught these doctrines, that the pope and other Ec∣clesiasticall persons are subiect to secular Emperours; that the pope and Bishops haue no iurisdiction (they meant ciuill, temporall or coactiue) from Christ, but from the Emperour; That the pope hath no pow∣er ouer the Emperour; That Imperiall dignitie is immediatè ab ipso solo deo immediately from God alone, and that the pope hath no power ouer it. That the excommunications and other censures of pope Iohn 22. against Lewis, were nullius momenti, of no force at all, nor to be regarded; That Lewis of Ba∣uare, was the true and lawfull Emperour, quamuis a sede Apostolica abdicatus fuisset, though hee were excommunicated and deposed, by the Pope; That

Pope Iohn was a notorious Hereticke.

An other verie great assembly was held at Frankfordh 1.687, or as some sayi 1.688, at Rheginoburgum, Anno 1342. at which were present the King of Eng∣land, the King of Bohemia, caeterique regni tam spi∣rituales, quam saeculares, principes, and the rest of the Empire, as well spirituall, as temporal Princes; They decreedk 1.689 many things behoofull for the Em∣pire, and among the rest, that he who is chosen of the princes Electors, should haue Imperiall administra∣tion, though he want the popes consent. For what was brought in more then election, proceeded from flatte∣rie of some, and from the popes owne suggestion, nec diuino iure, nec vlla patrum ordinatione, and neither from Diuine law, nor from the ordinance of their ancestors. Further, it was decreed, that the Empe∣rour being chosen, shall make vnto the Pope and the Church an oath of defence, deuotion, and humilitie, non fidelitatis, homagii, aut subiectionis iuramen∣tum, but not an oath of feoltie, homage, or subie∣ction either to the Pope or Romane Church, quia temporalis dominii Papa Imperatori nihil tribuit, imò Ecclesia sumpsit omnia illa ab Imperio, for the Emperour receiues no temporall dominion from the Pope, but the Pope and Church, receiued all their temporalities from Emperours. The decree made at Nouioburgum is verbatim set downe in Auentinusl 1.690 wherein the Emperour and States, say, that Iohn 22. commands men to breake their faith, to violate their promises and couenants, to de∣ceiue, to rebell, and conspire against the Empire. Hee calles men Heretickes, non aliam vllam ab causam,

for no other cause, but for that they are loyall to the Empire. And shewing how wickedly the Pope sought to vsurpe Imperiall power, These two, say they, are farre different, a Crosiar, and a Crowne, a Scepter and a sheephooke, an Emperour and a Pastor, Corporall and Spirituall power, weapons and prayers, Caesar and Seruant, Prince and Prelate, Lord and Minister; adding this, that the same man should bee an Emperour and a Bishop, is monstrum biceps, a two headed monster, a very Hell-hound. Nay, they call the Pope thus vsurping imperiall dignitie, not onely a Cerberus, but Antichrist, and the very Diuell himselfe.

Lupoldusu 1.691: The Oath which the Romane King makes to the Pope, and Romane Church, (the forme whereof, is set downe in their Canon* 1.692 Law) is not an Oath of fidelitie, that is, homagij quod praestat vas∣sallus suo domino ratione feudi, not of homage, as a vassall makes to his Lord, by reason of some lands holden of him in fee; but it is an Oath of fidelitie, that is, fidelis defensionis papae et ecclesiae impendendae of faithfull defence which he ought to performe to the Pope and Church. And for proofe of the former part he alledgeth the saying of Hugo, that Imperator habet potestatem a solo Deo quoad tempo∣ralia, the Emperour hath his temporall power from God onely, and in them is not subiect to the Pope; and againe, Imperator temporalia immediatè tenet a Deo, the Emperour holds his temporalities immediately from God. Whereupon hee con∣cludes, That for his Kingdome and Empire, and for the Prouinces and Lands belonging thereunto, non

tenet a Papa & ab Ecclesia in feudum, he doth not hold them in fee of the Pope and Church; and therefore the oath which he takes is not iuramentum homagii, an oath of homage, or vassallage. For the other part, that it is an oath of defence, he al∣leadgethy 1.693 that the Emperour is Aduocatus Eccle∣siae, as in their Canon lawz 1.694 he is expressely called: as Charlesa 1.695 when hee was made Patricius had thereby Aduocatiam Ecclesiae, the right of Ad∣uowson, or choosing Bishops in the Church. Now Aduocatiob 1.696 Ecclesiae nihil aliud est nisi ius defendendi Ecclesiam, to be the Aduocate or haue the Aduocation of the Church, is nothing else but to haue a right to Patronize and defend the Church. Whence the Patrons of Churches are calledc 1.697 Aduocates of the same; and to this purpose hed 1.698 well applies that saying in the Canon law, Regimen Ecclesiae Romanae est commissum Teutoni∣cis, the Gouernment of the Romane Church is committed to the Germane Emperour. Seeing then the Emperour is the defender, the Patron, or Aduocate of the Romane Church, by right whereof he had (by the Synodall Decree of Ha∣drian, and Leo the eight,) and indeede still hath, power and right of Aduocation, and nomination of him, which is to be Bishop of Rome; from this Lupoldus concludes, That the oath which Emperors take, and make to the Pope, is only an oath that hee will defend the Pope and Church, but not to bee an homager and vassall either to the Pope or Church.

And if it be said, that some Emperours haue taken the Empire in fee from the Church, to this Lupoldus

answeres,f 1.699 that the facts of some Emperours, can not preiudicate the rights of the Empire, and hee giues this, which is a true reason: because such Recognitions and submissions (if any were made) were not made with the consent of the Electors, of o∣ther princes, and of the people of the Empire; and therefore they may rightly contradict the same; be∣cause equitie and naturall reason doth teach, that quando per aliquod factum praeiudicatur pluribus, id per omnes illos comprobari debet, When any fact must bee of force to praeiudicate the right of o∣thers, that fact must bee approouedg 1.700 by them all; and this, saith he, seemes to be that which both the law of nations, as also the Ciuill and Canon law doth teach.

Guiliel. Occamh 1.701 the scholer of Ioh. Scotus, and Theologusi 1.702 praestantissimus, a most excellent Di∣uine, thus writes, The pope as he is Christs vicar hath power to excommunicate, sed poenam maiorem nulla∣tenus inferendi, but he hath no power to inflict a∣ny greater punishment. Againe,k 1.703 papa ratione papatus non est solutus legibus imperialibus, the Pope by reason of his Pontificall authoritie is not free from Imperiall lawes, but subiect vnto them: and againe, In temporalibus licet appellare a papa, ad Imperatorem, a man may in temporall matters, appeale from the Pope, to the Emperour; yea he prooues by many reasons, that in temporall mat∣ters, and for coactiue punishment, the Pope is and ought to be subiect to the Emperor. One, becausel 1.704 Christ himselfe as he was man, was subiect to the iurisdiction of the Emperour▪ seeing hee professeth

that Pilate had power to iudge him giuen from God. An other, becausem 1.705 neither Peter nor any other of the Apostles had coactiue or temporall power giuen them from Christ, as out of pope Gregorie and Ber∣nard he shewes, therefore neither hath the pope who is their successour, any coactiue iurisdiction ex ordi∣natione Christ; from Christ, or from his ordi∣nance and appointment. His bookes are ful of the like.

Philotheus Achillinusn 1.706 hath writ a very lear∣ned Dialogue worthy euery mans reading, to this purpose. The Clerke, or Proctor for the Pope, to prooue the Popes temporall Monarchie, vr∣geth a text of Innocentius the third, who out of those words of Christ; Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde, or loose vpon earth, shall be bound or loosed likewise in heauen, concludes that Peter (and so the pope) hath plenitudinem potestatis, the fulnesse of power, and therefore hath both Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill. To this the author, in the name of the Souldier an∣swereth, That if the words of Innocentius be taken in the largest sence, (as the Clearke tooke them) then they are flatly repugnant to an other text of In∣nocentius, where he saitho 1.707 Wee doe obserue that it pertaines to the King and not to the Church, to iudge of such possessions. Seeing then the pope who is the Church, or head of the Church, may not iudge of temporall possessions, then hath he not the fulnesse of power in respect of temporall matters. Wherefore, saith he, the words of Christ, whatsoeuer ye bind, &c. are thus to be expounded, that Christ excepted no∣thing, de his quae sunt necessaria regimini fidelium, et

non praeiudicant iuribus et libertatibus aliorum, No∣thing which was needfull for their spirituall go∣uernment of the faithfull, and which did not pre∣iudicate the rights and lawfull liberties of other men. But if they vsed their power of binding or loosing in any thing which was not necessarie for the spirituall gouernment, or which tooke away the rights of others (of which kinde hee reckons the deposing of Kings, the loosing subiects from their oathes of fidelitie, of taking a temporall Mo∣narchy ouer al, to be:) in such needlesse and iniuri∣ous binding and loosing, wherein they abuse their power, Christus non promisit potestatem Petro, Christ did not in such matters promise to binde or loose, what the Pope did either binde or loose. Againe,p 1.708 The Emperour and King hath not his power from man, sed a Deo solo, but from God onely; as he at large and truly prooues; and which is aboue all the rest to be remembred for our purpose, The oath, saith he,q 1.709 which Empe∣rours make to the Pope is not an oath of homage, as if they held their Empire in fee of the Pope, but of de∣fending the Church: euen as other Kings in their Kingdomes sweare, that they will faithfully defend the Church, and yet they doe not for this cause hold their kingdomes in fee of the Church. Nam Impe∣rator non tenetur iurare summo pontifici tanquam vassallus, sed è contra Papa, si vult retinere tempora∣lia, quae sibi Imperatores dederunt, tenetur iurare tan∣quam vassallus Imperatori: for the Emperour is not bound to sweare to the Pope as a vassal of the Pope, but quite contrarie, the Pope if he will hold

those temporalities which Emperors haue giuen vnto him, is bound to sweare to the Emperour as one of the Emperours vassals. His whole booke abounds with the like Embleames to prooue the Papall Monarchy.

Marsilius Patauinus,r 1.710 It is certaine that Christ being God, could haue giuen to the Apostles secular and coactiue authoritie ouer all Princes in the world; but he neither gaue it, nor did decree to giue it: Christs 1.711 both by his words, and by his example taught all both Bishops, and others, that they ought to be sub∣iect to the coactiue iudgement of secular Princes. Thist 1.712 coactiue power he denied to his Apostles, as well towards others, as among themselues: Vnto no Bishopsu 1.713 coactiue secular power is granted lege Di∣uina, by diuine law, neither can any Bishop, no not the Pope, haue coactiue secular power or iurisdiction ouer any Priests or other, vnlesse the same bee gran∣ted vnto him, per humanum legislatorem, by the se∣cular Prince or maker of temporall lawes. In whose power it is alwaies, to recall the same iurisdiction, vp∣on reasonable cause, cuius plena determinatio, and the full determining whether the cause be reasonable or no, is knowne to belong to the same secular Law-giuer or Prince.

Michael Cesenasx 1.714 besides other things which he deliuered against the pride and tyrannie of the Pope, as that the Popey 1.715 was Antichrist, and the Romane Church the whoore of Babylon, taught,z 1.716 that the Pope non habet corrigere & punire, in∣stituere vel destituere Imperatorem, hath no power to correct and punish, to make, or vnmake the

Emperour; and that neither the Pope nor other Ecclesiasticall persons could punish any, punitione co∣actiua, by ciuill, temporall, or coactiue punish∣ment, vnlesse they had power to doe so from the Em∣perour.

Iohan. de Ganduno.a 1.717 The Pope though neuer so Catholike and lawfull, non habet potestatem, nec authoritatem, aut iurisdictionem in temporalibus, hath no power nor authoritie, nor iurisdiction in temporall matters, specially not aboue the Empire, quod est immediatè a Deo, which is immediately from God.

A great number of learned menb 1.718 in France (whom they contemptuously called Pauperes de Lugduno) taught, that the Emperour is not subiect to the Pope, but onely in spirituall matters, & nemi∣nem posse saluari qui aliter credit, and that none who beleeues otherwise can bee saued. Can any maruell if the Popec 1.719 condemned Occam, Marsi∣lius, Cesenas, the Lugdunenses, and such like for He∣retickes? but that which was in them counted Heresie, in Austen, Ierome, Gregorie, and Agatho, was the true Catholike faith.

Iohn Wickleif,d 1.720 that worthy seruant of God, the Hammer of the Pope and his pride, besides many other things which he reprooued and con∣demned in the Romane Antichrist, this was one, that whereas Christ tooke not vpon him secular Do∣minion, his vicars non debent supra Christum extolli in Dominio saeculari, ought not to exalt themselues in secular Dominion aboue Christ: Which see∣ing they did, Wickleif thence among other

reasons concluded, that the Romanee 1.721 Church was Synagoga Satanae, the very Synagogue of Satan.

Nilus Thessalonicensisf 1.722 hauing recited the twentieth Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, By this, saith he, we learne that to the Pope is giuen Primacie before other Churches, non ab Apostolis sed a patribus, not by the Apostles, but by the Fa∣thers, and for that the Citie of Rome was the Imperi∣all Citie. From S. Peter hee receiueth no more then other Bishops doe. And whereasg 1.723 it is said, the Pope iudgeth all, but is iudged of none, this is false, saith he, and contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostles; contrarie also to the determination of Councels, for Pope Honorius was iudged and anathematized by the sixt Councell. The Pope is subiect to all lawes, which other Bishops are bound to obey. How can the Pope be exempt from iudgement instar tyranni, as if hee were a King? Seeing Nilus both exempts Kings, and subiects the Pope to humane iudge∣ment, professing the Popes power which he hath from Peter, to be no greater then other Bishops haue, he cleerely reiects and condemnes the Spi∣rituall, and a fortiori, the Popes temporall Mo∣narchy, as repugnant both to Diuine and Hu∣mane lawes.

Barlaamh 1.724 followes Nilus in euery steppe, teaching, all the other Apostles to haue had parem eundemque honorem, equall and the very same power which Peter had: and that the Popei 1.725 or Ro∣mane See had primacie among other Bishops, neither from Christ, nor from Saint Peter, sed multis postea faeculis, but many ages after the Apostles, by the

gift and benefit of the holy Fathers, and Emperours, as out of the 28. Canon of the Councell at Chalcedon he declares. Againe, If, saith he,k 1.726 the Pope be the chiefe among Bishops, because Peter to whom he suc∣ceedes, died at Rome, and so left that See to the pope, then much more ought the Bishops of Ierusalem to be accounted the chiefe among all Bishops, because Christ died at Hierusalem, and to Christ the Great Bishop ouer all, succeeds the Bishop of Hierusalem, euen as the pope doth to Peter. Seeing Barlaam reiects the Spirituall, much more hee doth condemne the temporall Supremacie and Mo∣narchy in the Pope.

Nicephorus Callistusl 1.727 professedly, and with much indignation refutes that slander of Zosi∣mus, that the Romane Empire was decayed and peri∣shed since Christianitie was embraced. O, saith he, if thou wert not blinded with superstition, thou mighst see that the Christian faith hath brought much and great increase to the Empire. Sure Zosimus calum∣nie must needs be iustified, and the Romane Em∣pire not onely impaired, but quite extinct, if the Pope be admitted as a superiour temporall Mo∣narch aboue the Emperour.

Matheus Westmonasteriensis,m 1.728 speaking of Pope Hildebrand saith, Iustè omnes Hildebrandum fuisse depositum conclamant tanquam laesae Maiesta∣tis reum, all did proclaime Hildebrand to be iustly deposed, as being guilty of high treason, seeing he set vp another against the Emperor Henrie.

Franc. Petrarchan 1.729 calles Rome Babylon a shamelesse strumpet, and saith also further,

o 1.730 Quicquid de Assiria, whatsoeuer we reade of the tyranny of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Aegypt, what of Auernus, of the Tartarian, and sulphurean fennes, is but a fable and toy, if it bee compared to this Tartarus of Rome. Here is that terrible Nim∣rod, here is Semiramis, here is the inexorable Minos and Radamanthus, here is Cerberus vniuersa consu∣mens, the three headed helhound deuouring all: I haue escaped out of that wicked Babylon, where all shamefastnesse is banished, where nothing that is good is to be found, which is the Inne of miseries and mother of errors, and hee esteemed the Papall throne to bee so abhominable, hat hee was vsed to say,p 1.731 Nullum maius malum cuiquam optari posse, quam vt fiat Papa, that one could not wish a greater mischiefe to any, then that he might bee made a Pope.

Dantes Aligeriusq 1.732 a learned Philosopher, and Diuine, hath writ an whole booke to prooue, that the temporall kingdome immediatè a Deo dependet, & non ab aliquo Dei vicario: Depends immediate∣ly of God, and not on the Pope or any vicar of Christ as being deriued from him; and of the Ca∣nonists who hold the contrary, he sayth, that they Theologiae ac Philosophiae inscii & expertes, being ignorant of diuinitie and all philosophy, do detract from the imperiall right. He fully refutes their ob∣iections or cauils, who teach the contrarie, and for a certaintie resolues thus, and most rightly, The temporall kingdome non recipit esse, nec virtutem (quae est eius authoritas) nec operationem a spiritu∣••li, neither receiues his being, nor his vertue (that

is, his authoritie) nor his operation from the spiri∣tuall power; but this it receiues from it, vt virtuosi∣us operetur per lumen gratiae, that it worke more Christianly, being illuminated with grace, and di∣rected by spirituall guides.

Bartholus,r 1.733 If any should say the Emperour is not the Lord and Monarch of the world, esset Haere∣ticus, he should be an Heretike, because he affirmes that which is against the determination of the Church, and the text of the holy Gospell. But hee was vnconstant in this truth, for elsewhere, (be∣like when hee was in the Popes territories) hee taught the contrarie, and is for that cause reproo∣ued by Couarruuiass 1.734.

Baldust 1.735, It is a Maxime among Lawyers, quòd Imperator Romanorum in temporalibus superiorem non habet, that in Temporall matters, the Empe∣rour hath none aboue him.

Cynusu 1.736, As the Pope, so the Emperour hath none aboue him, nam a Deo solo suum recognoscit im∣perium, for hee holds his Empire from none but from God.

Albericus de Rosatex 1.737. Hence it appeares that the Papall and Imperiall powers are altogether di∣stinct, & neutram ab alia pendere, and that neither of them depends on the other, but there is one im∣mediate spring of them both, and that is God. A∣gaine, Y 1.738 Whatsoeuer they say, I beleeue these powers are distinct, so that the one is chiefe in Temporall, to wit, the Emperor, the other, to wit, the Pope is chiefe in spirituall matters.

Iohan. de RupescissaZ 1.739 was famous for Prophe∣sies

and predictions in this age. He taught, the Ro∣mane Church to be the whoore of Babylon, and the Pope the Minister of Antichrist, and the Cardinals to be his false Prophets. He prophesieda 1.740 many things of Antichrist and the future Popes; and mul∣ta de suis prophetiis visa sunt euenisse, many of his prophesies seemed to be accomplished. Pope In∣nocent the sixth, was so ill pleased with his pro∣phesies, that he imprisonedb 1.741 him at Auinion: and no maruell; for one of them which is mentioned in Frossard,c 1.742 who saw him in prison, toucheth the Pope and his pompe very neere. It was set forth by a parable of the Bird, which being borne without feathers, all the other birds deckt her with their plumes, till the bird being growne gay and gal∣lant, not onely contemned all the other birds in re∣spect of her selfe, but would needs be master, and ty∣rannize ouer them all. The Birds not well brooking that pride, each of them pluckt away their owne fea∣thers, and left her naked. Euen so, said Iohannes, shall it fall out with the Romane Church, Pope, and Car∣dinals; The Romane and Germane Emperors, and o∣ther Christian Kings and Princes decked the Church with many gifts, ornaments, lands, and possessions. Siluester is not read to haue gone in state, guarded with 200. or 300. Knights, but he liued soberly as o∣ther Bishops did. Constantine, and other Princes, decked the Church so long, that the Pope grew inso∣lent, & tyrannicall, & would be Lord of all: wherfore God is angrie, and will yet be more incensed against those who follow; so that Kings and Nobles, who haue liberally giuen lands, reuenewes and goods to the

Church will not onely waxe cold in giuing, sed etiam prius donata auferant, but will vnplume the Ro∣mish Iay, and by taking away their owne feathers leaue the whoore naked and desolate, as S. Iohn in his Diuine Reuelation doth for a certaintie fore∣tell. Was it not time for the pope to imprison such a Prophet, propter haeresind 1.743, for speaking such heresies against the Romane See? And yet why should they be so stomachfull against this Iohānes? Did not Hildegardis some 200. yeeres before pro∣phesie the like? whose Epistle or prophesie is set downe by Albertus Stadensise 1.744 one liuing neere that age; The Romane Empiref 1.745 this of the West) shall decay, and those Princes who adhered vnto it, shall separate themselues from it, and bee no longer subiect to it; The imperiall Scepter decaying thus without hope of repairing, infula Apostolici hono∣ris, the miter of the Apostolicke honour shall also perish: for because neither Princes, nor other men, shall finde vllam religionem, any religion in the A∣postolicke order (that is, in Popes) dignitatem no∣minis illius imminuent, they shall take away the honour of the Pope, that is, as Iohn said, vnplume him: and the pope at that time by the diminishing of his honour and pristine dignitie, vix sub sua in∣fula obtinebit Romam, shall scarce haue Rome and a few adiacent places vnder his miter. Thus Hil∣degardis, and Albert. Stadensis not onely much commend her, and her prophesies, saying,g 1.746 that shee writ them Deo iubente, imò cogente, God com∣manding, yea inforcing her so to doe; but that Pope Eugenius the third, also scripta eius canoniza∣uit,

hath canonized her writings, and that in the Councell at Treires. Why should Hildegardis, prophesying that the Popes pompe and pompous Monarchicall State shall bee ruinated, and that iustly, because there is no true religion at all found in them, bee canonized for a Saint, if for the very like prophesie, Ioh. de Rupescissa bee condemned for an hereticke?

Saint Brigith 1.747 who liued and prophesied in the same 15. age, and within few yeeres of Iohn de Rupescissa, in her booke of Reuelations sets downe an heauier prophesie against the Pope then he did. Shee makes the Creator of all things to speake thus to the Pope and his adherents: Nunc conqueror superte, Now I complaine against thee, which art the head of my Church. Thou which should loose soules from sinne art a killer of them. I appointed Peter to be a feeder of my sheepe, but thou art a scatterer and destroyer of them: because thou art like to Lucifer, more vniust then Pilate, more cruell then Iudas, more abominable then the Iewes, therefore I doe iustly complaine of thee. Hauing de∣clared their sinnes, then shee foretels the iudge∣ment. The Lord thus answered: I sweare by God the Father, whose voice Iohn Baptist heard in Iordane; I sweare by that body, which Iohn baptized in Iordan; I sweare by that Spirit, which appeared in the shape of a Doue at Iordane; that I will execute iustice vpon these. Of the Head (that is the Pope) God said, Sedes tua demergetur, thy seat shall be drowned as a hea∣uie stone which can not stay till it come at the lowest bottome; For thy fingers, that is, thy assessors, they

shall burne with sulphureous fire, which can not bee quenched. Thy armes, that is, thy Vicars, shall bee adiudged to that punishment which Dauid speaks of, Psal. 109. Let his children be Orphanes, &c. My sim∣ple people which are vnder them, shall be separated from them, and they shall inherite euerlasting con∣fusion. Et sicut per honorem & superbiam super ali∣os ascenderunt, and as they haue in dignitie and pride ascended aboue others, so shall they descend and be drowned in the lowest pit of hell. Thy mem∣bers (that is, all thy followers and fauourers) shall be cut off, neither shall there any mercie come vpon them, but they with their heads, being seuered from all good, shall bee tormented. Thus Brigit, one of their Prophets, and canonized Saints, who hath writ seuen great bookes of such like Reuelations; for the credit and authoritie whereof, this is pre∣fixed in the beginning, after the proheme: Blessed be God, a quo hic liber inspiratus est immediatè, & diuinitus reuelatus, by whom this booke is imme∣diately inspired and reuealed from heauen. Hath not the Pope now good cause to tryumph in his Soueraigntie and Monarchicall Highnesse?

CHAP. X.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by Bishops and Writers, who liued from the yeare 1400. vnto the yeare 1500.

IN the fifteenth age the Coun∣cell of Pisaa 1.748, held Anno 1409.* 1.749 deposed not onely Benedict the 12. who was a pseudo-Pope, and intruder, but Gregorie the 12. also, who was the trueb 1.750 and lawfull Pope, for an hereticke and schismaticke. They knew not belike the Pope to bee the supreame Iudge and Monarch, who neither is nor ought to be subiect to any humane iudgement. And that the whole Church held their iudgement herein to be lawfull, doth clearely appeare, for otherwisec 1.751 Alexander the fift could not haue beene esteemed, as he was of all, the true and lawfull Pope, nor could the next Alexander haue called himselfe the sixt, but the fift▪ vnlesse Alexander the fift, who succeeded Gregorie the 12. then deposed, had beene held for a lawfull Pope, and no intruder.

The Councell at Constanced 1.752, held An. 1414. did the like, it deposed not onely two pseudo-Popes, but Iohn 23. also, the truee 1.753 Pope, who for his most enormous vices (he being vsually cal∣led f 1.754 a Deuill incarnate) merited that most

iust sentence. The same Councell further de∣creedg 1.755, that the Pope might and ought to be censu∣red, punished and deposed, either in case of heresie or of scandalous life, in both which cases, obedire te∣netur, he is bound, and ought to obey the sen∣tence of the Councell. Further yet, this Coun∣cell hauing excommunicated Iohn Hus, saithh 1.756, They must leaue him to the secular power, seeing Ec∣clesia Dei non habet quod vltra gerere valeat, the Church hath no more nor higher punishment then excommunication, that it can inflict. Cer∣tainly that Councel, and the Church in that age, thought not the Pope a temporall Monarch, nor a supreame Iudge, no not in Ecclesiastical, much lesse in secular causes, when they decreed, that he is and ought to bee subiect, both to the sen∣tence, censure, and punishment of an higher Iudge. And it is idly saidi 1.757, That this Councell in this decree is not approued▪ for if the Councell did not rightly in deposing those Popes, then was not Martin the fift true or lawfull Pope at all: and so the Decrees made therein against Wick∣liffe, Hus, and the Bohemians, are of no force at all, as wanting the consent of a true Pope to confirme them. If Martine was true Pope, (as with one consent they professe,) then may the true Pope bee either for heresie in doctrine, or criminall offences in life, censured, punished and deposed by a Superiour Iudge. Much more idle is that which is further saidk 1.758, that the former ses∣sions of this Councel wherein this is decreed, are re∣probated, because the Councell of Florence hath de∣creed

contrarie to this at Constance, that a Councell is not aboue the Pope; for by the very like reason, it may as iustly bee said, that the Councell at Flo∣rence, & the Decree made therein, is reprobated by the other at Constance, which decreed contra∣ry to that at Florence, That a Councell is aboue the Pope. The erronious decree at Florence, neither hath nor can haue so much force nor authoritie, to reprobate or adnull the decree of Constance, as the true decree at Constance hath, and ought to haue, to reprobate and adnull the decree at Florence: the consenting iudgement of the Church in all former ages, giues strength and authoritie to the decree at Constance, none but the late vpstart Hildebrandicall faction, doth countenance or maintaine the Decree at Flo∣rence.

The Councell at Basill 1.759 begun An. 1431. de∣creeth the very same with the former at Constance, yea they decree that to be a doctrine of the Catho∣like Faith, such, as whosoeuer doth pertinaciously gainesay, is an hereticke. So by the iudgement of this whole Councell, all the Bishops in their Florentine Synod, who denyed, and that perti∣naciously, the Pope to bee subiect to a generall Councell, were all heretickes; and their Decree both in it selfe hereticall, and made also by here∣tickes. They further addem 1.760 one point of speci∣all consideration, that Nullus vnquam peritorum dubitauit, None of skill and learning euer doub∣ted, but resolutely held the Pope to be subiect to the iudgement of generall Councels in those things which

belong vnto faith. So the Councell declares, the Pope neuer to haue had Spirituall, much lesse Temporall Supremacie, as a Monarch ouer all, and this to be so euident, knowne, and certaine a truth, that none of learning and iudgement e∣uer thought otherwise. Then by the Councels iudgement, all maintainers of the Popes supre∣macie, either spirituall or temporall, that is, all the Hildebrandian faction, are vnskilfull per∣sons, such as contradict the consenting voyce of all learned men. That this Councell of Basil, as also the decree thereof for the Councels superio∣ritie aboue the Pope, was ratified, approued, and confirmed, both by Pope Eugenius, and Pope Nicholas the fift, I haue at large in another Treatise touching the Councell of Basil decla∣red. For this time I will onely in a word obserue, that whereas they pretendn 1.761, That this Councell at Basil, and this Decree thereof was repealed by their Laterane Councel vnder Leo 10: It is true that Leo did what in him and that Synod lay to repeale it; But neithero 1.762 are Decrees of faith, (such isp 1.763 this) repealeable, they are all immutable and irreu••cable: neither was the authoritie of Leo, of more force to repeale the decree confirmed by Eugenius, thē the decree of Eugenius, was to repeale and adnull the decree of Leo. Nay that decree of Basil, forti∣fied by the vniforme consent of the Catholike Church, and of all learned men, is able to anni∣hilate the partiall, nouitious, Laterane decree of Leo, supported by none, but such as are illiterate or vnskilfull men, by the iudgment of the Coun∣cell

at Basil. Lastly, it is not vnknowne, what the Vniuersitie of Paris writ of that Laterane Synod of Leo; they account it no other but an hereticall conuenticle. Leo the tenth say theyq 1.764, in quodam cae∣tu nescimus qualiter, non tamen in spiritu Domini congregato, in a certaine assembly (they thought it vnworthy the name of a Synod or Councell) gathered we know not how, but sure not in the name of Christ, censu••t contra fidem Catholicam, decreed that which is contrary to the Catholike faith. Can an hereticall Conuenticle repeale or adnull the Decree of Basil, to which the whole Catholike Church consenteth?

The Councell at Byturesr 1.765, held An. 1438. by Charles the seauenth, the French King, made a Pragmaticall sanction, and therein confirmed the Decrees of the Councell at Basil in this manner. Perpetua esto, let the authoritie of the Councell at Basill, and the stability of the Decrees made there, be perpetuall, and let no man, no not the Pope him∣selfe presume at any time to take away or infringe the same.

Aeneas Siluiuss 1.766, who was after Pope, saith, Imperatorem super omnes mundi homines in tem∣poralibus Deus constituit, God hath set the Em∣perour aboue all men in the world (then sure a∣boue the Pope) for temporall matters: And againet 1.767, There is none who may iudge the faults of a King if he doe amisse. Tolerandumest patienter, It must with patience be indured, till either his heauenly Iudge, or his earthly successour do amend the same.

Petrus de Alliaco Card. of Cameracumn 1.768, Although both Christ and his Vicar, as he is the head of the Church, hath a Spirituall Monarchie, non ta∣men Regiam temporalem, yet he hath not a tempo∣rall and Kingly Monarchy. Againex 1.769 the errour of the Waldenses was, that temporall dominion, is re∣pugnant to the Pope and Eclesiastical function. The er∣rour of the Herodians was that Christ was a terrene King, whence the errour of those in our times is deriued, who presume to teach that the Pope, as he is Christs Vicar, hath immediatly authority, dominion, & iurisai∣ction in Temporall matters, and ouer secular Princes. The Catholike Church holds the meane betwixt these two contrarie errours, and teacheth, that to the Pope as Christs Vicar, temporall dominion is not due; against the second errour: and that the Pope may haue tempo∣rall dominion by the concession of secular Princes, or deriuation from them; against the first errour.

Cardinall Cusanusy 1.770, speaking of Charles the great declares, what dignitie by being Patricius belonged vnto him; The Patricius saith he, being pater patriae, habebat curam iudicij temporalis, & prae∣fuit in temporalibus, had the care of temporall iudgement, and was the chiefe in temporall mat∣ters, the Pope not intermedling in them; yea Patricius by the ancient glosse in Ca. Hadrianus dist. 63. (that glosse is now, for some good reason you may bee sure, wiped away and expunged) was Pater Papae in temporalibus, the father to the Pope in tempo∣rall, as the Pope is his father in spirituall matters. Againez 1.771 the Pope hath the highest ministeriall care, sed non dominationis Imperiū, but he hath not

Imperiall domination; the Pontificall and Impe∣riall powers are both of them from God, either distinct from the other, neither depending on the other, and this was antiquorum omnium vera opinio, the true opinion of all the ancient Fathers and writers, although now it bee growen doubtfull by reason of the sinister desire which many haue to speake pleasing things. Card. Turrecremataa 1.772 saith of King Dauid, Against thee onely O God haue I sinned, as against a Iudge, and one who hast power to punish me. Quia tu solus es superior me, because thou onely art aboue me. Againeb 1.773, if the Pope were the Lord of al things, nihil sibi posset dari, there could nothing at all bee giuen vnto him, and so the Donations made by Em∣perours should be false. Now of Constantines Do∣nation he there addes, Donationem hanc vere potuit facere, Constantine might truely make this Do∣nation. Card. Albanusc 1.774, The Popes haue long time possessed those lands which Constantine gaue, and they haue produced, nullum alium suae possession is ti∣tulum, no other title at all, but onely his Dona∣tion for their right. Then did they not, nor could they find any title to an vniuersal temporal Monarchie from Christ: for certainly in so ma∣ny hundreth yeeres, they would haue produced it. Card. Zabarelld 1.775, The Emperour is the Aduocate, and defender of the Church, and it so much belonges to him to defend it, that if the Popee 1.776 be suspected of heresie, potest ab eo exigere, he may exact of the Pope a declaration of his faith. The same Card. not onely holds and prouesf 1.777, a Councell to be a∣boue the Pope: but that the Pope may be an heriticke,

and may for Herisie be deposed, yea and for any other notorius fault, whereby he scandalizeth the Church, if hee be incorrigible, for such an one is esteemed an heriticke.

Laurentius Vallah 1.778, who was both the Prince of Grammarians in his age, (that was 1420.) and Theologus praestantissimus as Tritemiusi 1.779 cals him, a most excellent Diuine, not onely refutes, but derides that temporall Monarchie which Popes then claimed in the West. Rome, say they, is theirs, Sicile and Naples theirs, all Italie theirs, Spaine Germany, Brittany, all the West theirs; What, saith he to the Pope, will you rob all westerne Kings and Princes of their Crownes and kingdomes, and cause them to pay tribute vnto you? I rather thinke on the contrary, iustius licere principil us spoliare te imperio omni quod obtines, that it is more iust, that they should depriue you of all the Dominions you haue. Againek 1.780 let euery Romane Emperour know, that (as I iudge) hee is truely neither Cesar nor Em∣perour, vnlesse hee retaine the Romane Empire; and that he is periured, vnlesse he endeauour to recouer Rome from the Pope, for Emperours in former times were not forced to take such an oath, as now they doe, but they did sweare that so farre as in them lay, they would not impaire the Empire, but would labour to vphold, yea increase the same: This, and much more, elegantly to this purpose, doth Valla set downe.

Iohn Husl 1.781, Reges & Principes sunt capitales do∣mini bonorum temporalium, Kings and Princes, are highest and chiefe Lords of temporal goods,

yea, he was so resolute against the Ecclesiasticall (much more against the temporall) Monarchy of the Pope, that he saidm 1.782, Non est scnitilla ap∣parentiae, there is not one sparke of liklihood, that there ought to be one head in Spirituall matters to go∣uerne the Church: further hee calsn 1.783 such vniuer∣sall and supreame Bishops, capita monstrosa, mon∣strous heads in the Church; addingo 1.784, that the Popes dignitie and preeminence aboue other Bishops a Cesar is potentia emanauit, proceeded from Empe∣rours and from their appointment.

Gersonp 1.785 that famous Chancellour of Paris, The Papall power hath not the dominion and rights both of the heauenly, and earthly Empire, so that hee may at his pleasure dispose of the goods of the Cler∣gie, and much lesse of lay men: but he hath a dominion in those goods, which is directiue, regulatiue, and or∣dinatiue, not coactiue. And declaring this, he sets downe two contrary errours; the one of Detra∣ction, Which would depriue the Pope and Clergie of all dominion, and of all temporall iurisdiction, though it be conferred by Princes. The other of flatterie, which saith to the Popes (as hee protests some to haue written, and some Popes haue beleeued) O how great is the sublimitie of your power! how incomparable to it, is secular authoritie! As to Christ is giuen all power in heauen and in earth, so did Christ leaue eam omnem all that power to Peter and his succes∣sours; and as there is no power but of God, so is there neither any Temporall, nor Ecclesiasticall power, but from the Pope, in whose thigh Christ hath written, King of kings, and Lord of Lords, and of whose

power it is sacriledge to dispute. These doth Gerson condemne, as stult as, fals as, & insanas adulationes, as being foolish, false and franticke flatteries; And this is the very summe of their doctrine, of the Popes temporall Monarchie. And then reie∣cting both these errours, he saith, Discretion doth hold the meane betweene them both, so that Clergie men are such, as may both haue possessions of tem∣porall goods against detractours, and yet haue onely a directiue and regulatiue power in them, against flatterers.

Iohan. Maiorq 1.786 sets this downe for a conclu∣sion, The Pope hath not temporall dominion aboue Kings, and he proues it by sundrie reasons; first, if he had, then should Kings be the Popes vassals, and he might at his pleasure thrust them from their king∣domes; but this may not be granted. Secondly, the Popes themselues professe non spectare ad se iuris∣dictonem temporalem, that temporall iurisdiction doeth not belong vnto them. Againe, Kings re∣ceiue not their power immediately from the Pope, nec influentiam ab co vllam in temporalibus suscipiunt, neither doe they receiue any influence at all from him in temporall matters. For the temporall power doth not depend on the Spirituall, but they are both distinct powers, neither of them subordinate to the other, nor depending of the other, for the King is not the Popes vassall. Againe, the Pope hath two swordes indeede, but the one, to wit the Spirituall he hath in act, when hee excommunicates, or inter∣dicts; the other, to wit the Secular, he hath in habit, id

est potest rogare Princepes terrenos quatenus sint sibi subsidio, hee may desire secular Princes to helpe him with that sword. Againe, Though Pe∣trus Paludamus, and Turrecremata hold the con∣trary, yet that which they hold, facultas nostra censuit in fide haeresin, our facultie hath censured it to be an herisie against the faith.

Iacobus Almaner 1.787 hath writ a whole Booke touching the Ecclesiasticall and Laicall power. He hauing declared thes 1.788 the difference betwixt hauing Dominion or proprietie in goods, and ha∣uing Iurisdiction in those temporall goods, adds two conclusions fitt for our purpose. The for∣mert 1.789, that the Pope hath not by Christs institution, supremam potestatem Dominij in singulis hominibus, & bonis ipsorum, not supreame dominion, ei∣ther ouer all persons, or ouer their goods, and to say the contrary, is as hee out of Occam teacheth, multum Haereticale & perniciosum, ve∣ry heriticall and pernicious. His other con∣clusion is thisu 1.790, The Pope hath not by Christs institution, supremam potestatem Iurisdictionis in rebus temporalibus, not the supreame power of Iurisdiction in temporall matters, and that hee prooues out of S^t. Augustine.x 1.791 And after, enquiring whence the secular power of Princes doeth depend, The resolution saith he ^y, of this question is thus. Potestas iurisdictionis prin∣cipium saecularum non dependet a Papa, The power of iurisdiction which secular Princes haue, nei∣ther dependes on the Pope, nor on the Romane

Church: Nay the Pope hath no laicall Iurisdiction, nisi ex collatione Imperatorum & principum, but by deputation or grant from Emperours and Prin∣ces, or by prescription, (in which is a tacit grant, or consent of Princes.) His booke is full of the like assertions.

Nichol. de Clemangisz 1.792 complaines, That the Popes libidine dominandi, in their lust and desire of dominering, exalted themselues aboue Emperours, Kings, and Princes, of all Nations: that the Popes Dominiona 1.793, nay their tyranny is omnibus nec iniuria supra modum inuisa, detested of all, and that de∣seruedly; To say nothing of that his Treatiseb 1.794, wherein he proues, that wee must depart out of Ba∣bylon (that they knowc 1.795 and professe to be Rome) not onely in affection and heart, but corporally also.

Theodorick de Niem.d 1.796 Episc. Verdensis, The Imperiall power, as also the Ecclesiasticall depend im∣mediatly of God; and therefore fatue & adulatorie loquuntur, qui dicunt quod Papa habet duos gladios, they speake foolishly, and flatteringly, who say that the Pope and Church hath two swords, spi∣rituall and temporall. These parasites and flatte∣rers haue bronght a very great error into the Church, which raiseth perpetuall discord betwixt the Pope and the Emperour.

Thomas Waldensise 1.797 in a whole Chapter both by reasons and by authoritie of fathers proues, that Regall power is immedtatly from God. In prae∣sumptione delinquunt, they offend presumptuous∣ly, saith he, who affirme that the roote of secular power depends on the Pope, and that the execution of

it is deriued from the Popes grant vnto Princes. The temporall power of Kings is reduced to none aboue the King, but onely to Christ; the priest and the King haue vnder Christ impermixt as potestates, powers which are not conioyned in any one. By this it is euident quod à sacerdote non habet Rex originem, that kingly authoritie is not deriued from the Pope. Regall power is giuen to the King by Christ. There are duae primae potestates, two powers (pon∣tificiall and regall) both which, are first in their owne order, & neutra ab altera secundum originem, and neither of both takes his beginning from the other, but either of them in the exercise of his owne power is greater then the other: And very often the like.

Will. Widefordf 1.798 writing against Wickliffe, brings in Iohn and Paul, speaking thus to Iulian the Em∣perour, We doe you no wrong, nor doe set any man aboue you in Dominion, but we set God aboue you who created heauen and earth.

Dionisius Carthusianusg 1.799 speaking of Dauid, saith, seeing he was a King, non habuit iudicem supe∣riorem in terra, he had no superior Iudge vpon earth that could punish him.

Platinah 1.800 liked not well of that Papall Monar∣narchy, when reprouing Boniface the eight, vsur∣ping that authoritie, he saith, he did rather terri∣fie Emperours, Kings, Princes, and Nations, then put religion into them, quique dare Regna & auferre. who sought at his pleasure to giue and take away Kingdomes; And inueying against the vices of his time, specially in the Popes, he saithi 1.801, What

shall become of our age wherein vices are growne to that height, vt vix apud deum misericordiae locum no∣bis reliquerint, that they haue scarce left any place for God to be mercifull: and among other sins he reckons the Couetousnesse, ambition, pomp, and pride of their Cleargie, especially corum qui rerum potiuntur, that is of the Popes: adding, that there was little regard of Religion, that it was ra∣ther fained then true, and their manners so cor∣rupt and detestable, as if inde laudem quaererent, they sought for praise by the vilenesse of their sinnes.

Wernerusl 1.802 saith of Boniface the eight, Hee did vltra modum beyond measure, aduance himselfe to that arrogancie, vt Dominum totius mundi se diceret tam in temporalibus quam inspiritualibus, that hee called himselfe the Lord of the world, as well in temporall as in spirituall matters; This is hee of whom it is said, He entred like a Foxe, reigned like a Lyon, and dyed like a Dogge.

Iohannes Auentinusm 1.803 speaking of Pope Hil∣debrand, saith, falsi tum Prophetae, false Prophets, false Apostles, false Priests did then arise, who deceiued the people with a counterfeit Religion, and who beganne to exalt themselues in the Tem∣ple of God, aboue all that is honoured, and whiles they endeuour to establish their owne power and Dominion, they quench Christian charitie and simpli∣citie. Sigebert, a Writer of those times, omnis diuini humanique iuris consultissimus: a man most skil∣full both in diuine and humane Lawes, wri∣teth

thus, (and Auentinus approues his writing therein.) A most pernicious sedition, and let me say it with the leaue of the godly, a most pe∣stilent heresie, then assailed the Christian people; They are bould to teach not onely that men ought not to obey such Gouernours as are placed by God ouer them, verum etiam fraude, vi, quouis modo tol∣lendos, but that such are to be murdered or ta∣ken away either by fraud or violence, or by any meanes: Periuries, murders, ciuill warres, perfidiousnesse, these they call pietie. They ab∣solue from obedience, those who are tyed to the Emperour by the sacred band and oath of religion, those who are faith-breakers, truce-breakers, vio∣lators of oathes, they perswade such not to bee periured. Againen 1.804, The holy Fathers did what Christ taught, what the Apostles both taught and performed, they honoured Emperours, vt in ter∣ris à Deo secundos, & ante omnes mortales primos, as the next vnto God heere vpon earth, and as the cheefest among all mor∣tall men, calling them their Lords; they de∣nyed not tribute vnto them. But Hildebrand boasteth, that both the Pontificall and Imperiall authoritie is giuen vnto him by GOD, hee takes both powers vpon him, he dispiseth Emperours and Kings, vt precario regnantes, as ruling onely at his pleasure and will. Thus and much more A∣uentinus.

Gagninuso 1.805, of Boniface 8. writeth; Thus dyed Boniface, the despiser of all men, Qui Christi prae∣ceptorū minime recordatus, who not remembring

the precepts of Christ, sought at his pleasure to giue and take away Kingdomes, whereas he was not ignorant, that he was his Vicare, cuius regnum non esset de hoc mundo, whose kingdome was not ter∣rene, nor of this world.

Petrus Ferrariensisr 1.806, you see that the Pope (who should follow the foote-steps of Christ) doth indeuour to possesse and hold by armed hand iurisdiction in lands, Citties, villages, and places which naturally, and from the beginning of the world, and by the ordinance of Christ, belong to the Empire, according to that, Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars: Nay the Pope indeuours to haue superioritie aboue the Emperour, Quod ridiculum est dicere, & abomina∣bile audire, which to say is ridiculous, and to heare is abominable. For naturally, and from the be∣ginning of the world, not onely Laikes, but Clerkes, Erant sub potestate & iurisdictione Impe∣rij, were vnder the power and iurisdiction of the Empire: Bene ergo et sancte faceret ipse Papa, wherefore the Pope should doe well and religi∣ously, if he did remit the whole Temporall iu∣risdiction into the hands of the Emperor: neither without so doing will the Common-weale, and specially Italy euer be at quiet, and by this means both Pope, Cardinals, and the whole state of the Cleargie, should liue more deuoutly, and bee more gratefull and acceptable both to God and men. Thus Petrus.

George Hiemburges 1.807 at large refutes this vsur∣ped Papall Monarchie, (so he cals it) answering

their vaine pretences for the same, and hauing to this purpose alledged the testimonie of Christ, of S. Paul, of Hierom, Origen, Chrysostome, Basil, and Bernard, by this, saith het 1.808, it appeares, fa∣bulam & figmentum esse, that it is a meere fable and figment which is written in the Popes Decre∣tals, that the Pope hath the fulnesse of power giuen him by Christ, and such a Dominion that he is aboue Kings and Princes in temporall matters. Againeu 1.809, by these now it doth appeare more cleare then light, that Christ gaue no temporall power at all vnto Priests, much lesse did he giue the fulnesse mundanae & temporalis potestatis, of terrene and secular po∣wer: nay it doth cleerely appeare that this (supreame and independent) power is both by Christs words and example, forbidden to the Apostles and their suc∣cessours.

Antonius Rosellusx 1.810 proues, that the Pope is vt∣terly vncapable of Monarchicall and Temporall So∣ueraigntie, whereof hauing giuen diuers reasons, from hence, saith he, I doe conclude, haereticum & insanum esse, dicere quod vniuersalis administratio temporalium sit vel esse possit apud pontificem, that to say the Pope either hath or can haue the vni∣uersall iurisdiction and administration of tem∣porall affaires, is Hereticall, and a madnesse.

CHAP. XI.

That the Popes temporall Monarchy is condemned by Bishops and learned writers liuing from the yeare 1500. vnto 1620.

IN the sixteeneth age,* 1.811 when Iu∣lius the second, non tama 1.812 claui∣ger quam armiger, one that vsed Pauls sword more then Peters keyes, sought partly by force, partly by fraud to take Ferraria from the French, Lewis the ele∣uenth then King of France, calling certaine Car∣dinals vnto him, summoned a Councellb 1.813 to Pisa Anno 1511, cited Pope Iulius ad causamc 1.814 dicendum, to answere and plead for himselfe in the Coun∣cell. A demonstration they held not him for their supreame Monarch. The Poped 1.815 exhorted the French King not to take part with the Cardinals, but he, nihil horum aduertens not regarding a whit the Popes admonitions, continued his resoluti∣on against the Pope; Iulius excommunicated him, which caused him to make warre against the Pope, wherein the Pope was forced to flee to Ostia, and was faine both to suee 1.816 for a reconcile∣ment at the French Kings hand and to appoint a Councell at Rome in the Laterane of purposef 1.817 to di∣uert

and auoid the danger of the Councell at Pisa.

Anno 1561. was held an assembly at Parisg 1.818 a∣gainst Iohn Tanquerell, who held that the Pope was both a spirituall and temporall Monarch, and that Princes who rebell against the Popes precepts, are to be depriued of their Kingdomes and Dignities. It was there decreed by the whole assembly, that Tanquerell should be punished, and because hee was absent, that the Bedle in his name should openly de∣clare that Tanquerell was sorry for moouing that question, which he acknowledged to haue bene hand∣led both rashly and inconsideratly; and that for this cause he did most humbly beseech the King to pardon his offence. And further it was decreed, that no Diuines should handle (much lesse defend) such questions, and positions as was this of Tanquerell; of which the King himselfe said, It tended to sedi∣tion, and to weaken that loyaltie of lawfull obedience which is due to the King. This Decree ten daies after was put in execution, where before some fiftie Di∣uines, Petrus Gustus in the name of Tanquerell retracted, errorem à Bonifacio 8. inuectum et post eius mortem passim damnatum, that error brought in by Boniface the eight, and euery where after his death condemned.

Another assemblyh 1.819 of the French State, was held at Paris, anno 1595. against one Florentinus Iacobus, and Thomas Blancius, their positions were, that seeing Pope Clement the eight was Christs vice-gerent in earth, there was no doubt, but both Temporall and Spirituall power was from the Pope. And againe, that the Pope had the power

of both swords, Spirituall and Temporall: It was declared by the assembly, That these positions were false, Schismaticall, contrarie to the word of GOD, to the holy Decrees, Constitutions, Canons and Lawes of the Realme, such as tended to rebel∣lion, and troubling of the peace of the King∣dom.

In another assembly at Parisi 1.820, anno 1595. Car∣dinall de Pelleue, and other Prelates reiected cer∣taine Decrees of the Trent Councell; for whereas the Pope and his Trent faction had saidk 1.821, that if any Emperour, King, Duke, Marquesse, or other temporall Lord, should grant any place within his territories, for Duell, by so doing they are to be ipso facto excommunicated, and depriued of their iuris∣diction and dominion ouer that Cittie, towne, castle, or place, wherein they permitted Duell, the assem∣bly of those Prelates thus censure that Trent De∣cree. This Trent Article is contrarie to the authori∣tie of the King, who cannot be depriued of his tem∣porall dominion, respectu cuius nullum omnino supe∣riorem recognoscit, in respect of which he acknow∣ledgeth none at all (among mortall men) to bee his superiour.

When Leo the tenth his Laterane assem∣bly, had as much as in them lay, adnulled the Pragmaticall Sanction made in the Councell at Bytures, wherein the Decrees made in the Coun∣cell at Basill were confirmed, the Vniuersitie of Paris,l 1.822, an. 1517. not only appealed from the Pope; thereby professing him not to bee the supreame Iudge, no not in spirituall, (much lesse in tem∣porall)

causes, but expresly saide of that Laterane Synod, that it was an hereticall assembly, and had decreed that which was contrarie to the Catholique faith, as before we declared.

The French Churchm 1.823, (I meane those in that Kingdome who imbrace their present Romish faith) were so far from acknowledging the Popes Soueraigntie in temporall, that they would not admit it so much as in spirituall matters. This opi∣nion, saith that worthy relatourn 1.824; (that a generall Councel is aboue the Pope) is very currant and strong euen among such Catholikes in France, as fauour the Papacie. Others hold their Romane Church to be a true Church, but for the Pope, they hold reso∣lutely that he is Antichrist. This sort spreadeth farre, and as themselues will say, is of the learned sort. How did they account him their Soue∣raigne, who not long since in the daies of Henry the fourth. Wheno 1.825 the Pope made scruple to blesse the King, they were readie to withdraw thēselues vt∣terly from the obedience of that See, and to erect a new Patriarch of their owne; The Archbishop of Burges was readie to accept that dignitie, and it had beene effected, but that the Pope, in feare there∣of, did hasten his Benediction. How againe, did that Church acknowledge the Pope for a Monarch, when they would not accept nor allow of his Lawes made in the Conncell at Trent. The Kingp 1.826 not onely in contempt, calling it Conuentum, and not Concilium, at which the Trent Assembly stormed not a little,

but professing also, se suosque subditos, that he and his subiects would by no meanes bee bound to obey the same: others of the same French Church were so auerse from those Trent decrees, euen vntill these daies, that but of lateq 1.827, anno 1614. some of the Prelates and Peeres, entreated this pre∣sent King Lewis the 13. that he would commaund, that Oecumenical Councell per totum regnum recipi, ac promulgari, to be receiued in his whole King∣dome: But the loue which that French Church r 1.828 beareth to the Councel at Basil, and their owne pragmaticall sanction made at Bytures, may per∣swade that this Iesuiticall motion, will hardly euer there take effect, although Gualters 1.829 boasts of the great successe it found in that yeare.

Further yet how was the Popes Monarchie there acknowledged, whent 1.830 anno 1610. the do∣ctrine and Booke of Card. Bellarmine, written a∣gainst Barclay, (in which Bellarmine defends that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Prin∣ces) was so detested by that State, that in their pub∣licke assembly they did prohibit and forbid any, and that vnder the paine of high treason, either to keepe or receiue, or print or sell that booke continentem fal∣sum ac detestabile dogma, conteining that false and detestable doctrine, tending to the subuersion of the highest Magistrates, to rebellion against Prin∣ces, to the withdrawing of due obedience in subiects: They commaund further, and vnder the punish∣ment also of high treason, Ne quis Doctor, Pro∣fessor, that no Doctor, Professour, or any other, should write or teach directly, or indirectly the same

doctrine of the Popes temporall power; to wit, that hee hath power to excommunicate and depose Kings, to giue or take away their Kingdomes. And though it were true (which is all that Gret∣zeru 1.831 could hereunto oppose) that the present King Lewis, at the sollicitation of the Popes Nun∣cio, stayed the publishing of that Edict for a time, yet the verie Decree of their whole State and Se∣nate, demonstrates that which wee intend and proue, that this pestilent doctrine of the Popes Supremacie, was abhorred and detested by that whole State.

Besides these, how many Synodsx 1.832 held by those of the reformed Churches in this age, might be produced? diuers at Wormesy 1.833, at Au∣gusta, at Spire, at Norimburg, at Ratisbone, at Franckford, at many other places in all which the Popes supremacie not onely Temporall, but Ec∣clesiasticall also, was condemned. Of them all I will mention but one Decree, of that late Nati∣onall Synod at Gapez 1.834 in France, which is this, Whereas the Bishop of Rome, hauing erected a Mo∣narchy in the Christian Church, doth challenge and arrogate vnto himselfe principality ouer all Chur∣ches, and treadeth vnder••foote the lawfull authoritie of Magistrates, giuing, taking away, and translating Kingdomes, we doe steadfastly beleeue, and constantly affirme him (the Bishop of Rome) esse verumil∣lum et Germanum Antichristum, to bee that true and great Antichrist, and sonne of perdition.

To these may be added the confessions of ma∣ny reformed Churchesa 1.835; of Auspurge presented

to Charles the fift, an. 1530. of Basil, an. 1532. of Heluetia, an. 1536. of Saxonie, an. 1551. writ∣ten to be presented to the Councell at Trent, of Wittenberg, an. 1552. presented to their Councel at Trent, of France, an. 1559. presented to Charles the ninth; of England, an. 1562. of Belgia, anno 1566. of Bohemia, an. 1573. of Scotland, an 1581. and others; in all which with one harmonie is condemned their Papall Monarchie, and that euen in Ecclesiasticall, much more in Tempo∣rall causes.

What an infinite number of Witnesses in this last age might be produced out of the reformed Churchesy 1.836, Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucer, Caluine, Musculus, B. Iewell, B. Horne, B. Bilson, and those three Reuerend and most learned Bi∣shops now liuing, B. Andrewes, B. Buckridge, B. Moorton: D^r. Rainolds, D^r. Whitakers, & a million of other learned and godly Bishops, Pastors, and Writers of the Church, who not onely re∣iect, but haue by vnanswerable reasons refuted that Papall Monarchie, which they now claime. And though to these most worthy seruants of Christ, the writers of their present Romane Church in this age, are neither for learning, nor pietie, in any sort to be compared, yet omitting all these, I will alledge cheefely the testimonies of some of their owne and best learned writers in this age, most of them such as are extreamely partiall on the Popes side, and earnest in his cause, that themselues giuing testimonie to that truth which we maintaine, and like Midianites,

sheathing their swords in the bowels one of ano∣ther, this Temporall Monarchy of the Pope like the head of Goliah, may be cut off, though by the hands of Dauid, yet with the Philistines owne swords.

It was no good token, that either Pope Hadri∣an the sixt, or Marcellus 2.z 1.837, liked wel of their Mo∣narchicall Soueraigntie, when the formera 1.838 cau∣sed this to be written on his tombe; That he esteemed nothing to haue beene more vnhappy vnto him, then that he did Imperare; and the otherb 1.839 sitting at din∣ner on a time, and there remembring that speech of Hadrian, smiting his hand on the table, brake out into this saying: Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altissimum tenent, saluari possunt, I see not how any Pope can be saued. The well meaning Pope, it seemes, was conscious of some excee∣ding vsurpation, transgression, or iniustice, ge∣nerall to all later Popes; (and what else should that be, but their vsurped Soueraigntie) when he grew to such a generall dispaire of the salua∣tion of them all.

Card. Caietanec 1.840, vnder the power of Peter it is comprehended, that he rules ouer Kings and Princes in order to the kingdome of heauen, nee enim huius∣modi Imperium aliud est, quam aperire & claudere regnum coelorum, for this power which the Pope hath, is nothing else, but to open or shut the kingdome of heauen; then hath hee no Tempo∣rall Monarchy; and this to be the iudgement of Caietane, Bellarmined 1.841 and Franc. de Victorrae 1.842 as∣sure

vs. Caietane teacheth, that in the Pope there is no meere temporall power.

Ambrosius Catharinusf 1.843, There are some, who either in flattery, or in too great simplicitie, affirme the Pope to haue Dominationē e••iam temporalem toti∣us orbis terrae, the Temporall Dominion of the whole world. Verum ridicula haec profecto, But truly thus to say is ridiculous. And he sets down diuers reasons to disproue that ridiculous asser∣tion. One, because if it were so, then there should none be truly Kings in the world but onely the Pope. Another, because Christ himselfe refused to bee a Temporall King, when the Iewes would haue made him one: and he answered, to one of the brothers who requested him to diuide the inheritance, who made me a Iudge, or a diuider between you? Of which words Catharinus thus saith; Hic locus videtur co∣gere vt fateamur, This place seemes euen to en∣force vs to confesse, that secular iurisdiction was not giuen vnto him. Againe, we doe not deny that the Pope hath dominion of tempor all things, but this we say, that such dominion is not giuen to him as Pope, nor immediatly by Christ, sed illud habet quasi vnus quilibet hominum, but he hath it as any other man, vnto whom by humane right such power befals. Againe, In this, that the Pope is Christ Vi∣care, there is no force to proue, that power is giuen to him, ad regendum omnia regna mundi in tempora∣libus, to rule all kingdomes in temporall affaires. Nay this doth rather perswade, that such power is not giuen vnto the Pope, seeing Christ whose Vicare

he is, refused that honour, and tooke it not vpon him, as hee was man, but was himselfe subiect to secular powers.

Domin. Sotog 1.844, The excellencie of the Ecclesiasti∣call powers aboue the Ciuil, is not of this sort, that the Pope should be Lord ouer the whole world in temporal matters, And he giues diuers reasons hereof; one, Christ left to his Vicar no other power, but what him∣selfe as man had, nullum autem Regnum temporale accepit, but Christ receiued no Temporall King∣dome. Another, Pope Innocentius, in the Chap. per venerabilem, qui fil. sint legit. confesseth ingenu∣ously that he hath not power in temporall matters in the kingdome of France, and, quicquid alij somni∣ant, whatsoeuer others dreame, he vnderstands this, de omnibus regnis, of all Kingdomes.

Ioh. Driedoh 1.845, This is to be knowne, that Christ when he set Peter ouer the whole Church, giuing him Iurisdiction ouer all the members thereof, non simul dedit ei imperium temporale super vniuersam Ecclesiam, did not with all giue him any Tempo∣rall Dominion or Monarchy ouer the whole Church: For he did not take from Kings and Em∣perours their Empires, neither was it his will or in∣tent, that all Regall power should be deriued from the power of Peter, or from the Pope. Neither doe Christian Princes and Kings hold their Kingdomes and Empires in fee from the Pope. Whence hee concludes this to be manifest, That the Imperiall power of one man ouer the whole Church, non est di∣uini iuris, aut naturalis, is neither from the law of God, nor nature, seeing neither naturall reason,

doth dictate, that one should be a Temporall Lord ouer all, neither doth the Law of God command it.

Andradiusi 1.846 commends very highly that say∣ing of Aquinas, Prudentissime docuit, Thomas taught most wisely, That secular Princes are not bound by lawes in respect of coaction, but of directi∣on That is, paenis cogi non posse, they cannot bee compelled by punishments due to transgressors. And the same Andradius addesk 1.847, That all lear∣ned men, yea euen the Popes themselues, Innocenti∣us and Hadrian approue this saying of Thomas: Then by the iudgement of Andradius, all learned men, and Popes themselues teach, the Pope not not be a superiour Lord, or Temporall Mo∣narch to Kings and Princes; for if they were, they might inflict temporall punishments, and vse coactiue authoritie ouer them.

Claud. Espenseusl 1.848, the Apostle following both the example and doctrine of Christ, commaunded be∣leeuers to be subiect to temporall powers; But some turbulent persons making a controuersie betwixt the Priesthood and kingdome, haue raised great troubles; Chrysostom long after the Apostles, and many hun∣dreth of yeares, antehan•• camerinam, before this sinke was set open, neuer suspecting that any such thing would happen, taught, that euery soule must be subiect, whether he be an Apostle, an Euangelist, a Prophet, or a Bishop; Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, and all the Greekes follow Chryso∣stome. Gregorie the Great ingenuously acknow∣ledged, that the Emperour ought, Dominari, to rule ouer Priests. Bernard teacheth the same: yea Popes

themselues in their Decrees, fatentur se imperato∣ribus subiectos esse, confesse that they are subiect to Emperours. Gregoriem 1.849 the seuenth called Hildebrand by a new schisme first of all, lifted vp his Pontifical lance against the Imperial diademe.

Krantziusn 1.850 speaking of Hildebrand, trium∣phing gloriously in his two swords, at the time of the great Iubile, which hee first instituted, with indignation thereat, saith, Behold O Peter, thy successour, and thou O Christ, behold thy Vicare, Vide quo ascendit superbia serui seruorum tuorum, See whither the pride of the seruant of thy ser∣uants is ascended.

Iob. Naucleruso 1.851 handling, but very timerously, this question about the Popes Temporall Mo∣narchie, in the end resolues as Gerson did, That both Detraction is to be shunned, whereby all tem∣porall power and possessions are denyed to the Pope: and also Adulation; whereby one ascribes so much to the Pope, as if all kingdomes did depend on him, which he with Gerson cals, slultas & fals as adu∣lationis insantas; moderate discretion keepes the meane betwixt these two: Againe, Videntur per em∣nia culpandi, those Bishops seeme altogether to be worthy of blame, who would smite the Kings with that temporal sword, quem ipsi ex regum habent gra∣tia, which they haue frō the permission of Kings.

Georgius Cassanderp 1.852, this Controuersie about the Popes supremacy in spirituall matters, had neuer, as I thinke, risen among vs, but that Popes hac authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi, abusing this authoritie to a kinde

of domination, had exceeded the bounds prescri∣bed by Christ. This abuse of their Pontificial power, which flatterers haue beyond all measure encreased, gaue accasion of reuolting from the Church, and of disliking that power, which they obteined by the vni∣uersall consent of the Church. Againeq 1.853, this ought to be held without all doubt, that the power and au∣thoritie of Christian Kings and Emperours, is no way lesse nor inferiour to the authority which the Kings of Israel had in their Common-wealth. Now Careri∣us,r 1.854, and others, who are most violent for the Popes Temporall Monarchie, professe, That in the time of the Law, the Kings of Israel were supe∣riour to Priests, and had power and iurisdiction a∣boue them: might punish and depriue them of their spirituall offices and dignities; yea, euen kill them as any other lay persons, if they were transgressours. The Kings 1.855 was then the substantiue, and the Priest∣hood the adiectiue. Then by Cassanders iudgement, it is also now and ought for euer so to be.

Sixtus Senensist 1.856, disputing this point, resolues it out of Turrecremata. lib. 2. Cap. 113. in this man∣ner. An vniuersall temporall power is two-fould: the one is Monarchicall, the other Pastorall: The Monarchicall power is that whereby one is made a Monarch and supreame Lord of all persons & lands in the world, so that he may aduance whom he will to Kingdomes, Empires, and Dukedomes, and depose whom & when he wil: This Monarchical power the Pope hath not, saith Turrecremata; and to him Sixtus subscribes, and he giues this reason, be∣cause Christ hath forbidden this to his Apostles; for

when they did striue, saith he, de Monarchia tempo∣ralis regni, which of them should be a Temporal Monarch, Christ answered, the Kings of the Gen∣tiles reigne, but with you it shall not be so. Pastorall power in temporall matters in such, as the Occume∣nicall Pastour may vse for the better administration of the spirituall blessings in the Church, This the Pope may haue, saith Sixtus, but he may not take vp∣on him Monarchical domination; that is forbidden by Christ.

Hosiusy 1.857 cals Kings the heads of their kingdomes, adding, that Christ being the principall head, gouerneth by those who are ministeriall heads vnder him, by Princes and Emperours hee go∣uernes kingdomes; by the Pope, the Church, and vn∣to Christ as the head of the Church, so the head of the kingdome is subiect.

Francis. à Victoriaz 1.858, The Apostles had power and authoritie in the Church, ea autem non fuit ciui∣lis, but it was not any ciuill power, seeing nei∣ther their kingdome, nor power was of this world. Againea 1.859, Temporall power doth not depend on the Pope, the Pope giues no power to Kings and Princes, for no man giues that which he hath not: Againeb 1.860, the Ciuill power is not subiect to the Popes temporall power, or to the Pope, tanquam Domino temporali, as to a Temporall Lord. Whence it followeth c 1.861 manifestly, that the Pope hath no ordinary power to iudge of the causes of Princes, of rights of domini∣on, or title of kingdomes, neither may one appeale to him in temporall causes. Further yet, Ind 1.862 Papa nul∣la est potestas mere temporalis, there is no meere

temporall power at all in the Pope; neithere 1.863 doth the temporall power depend on the spirituall, as an inferiour art depends on his superior, as the art of making bridles depends on horsemanship, and the art of making weapons, on the Military skill. All these and much more doth Victoria proue.

Albert••s Pighiusf 1.864, That they say, Christum spiritualem tantum potestatem Apostolis dedisse, eti∣am nobis placet, that Christ gaue onely Ecclesia∣sticall power to his Apostles, I like it well, and say the same. Pighius reacheth, saith Bellarmineg 1.865, that the Pope directly hath no Temporall Do∣minion.

Duarenush 1.866, Bishops haue not ius gladij & impe∣rium, the right of the sword, nor an Empire: This belongs to ciuill Magistrates, as Christ cleerely witnesseth when he said, My kingdome is not of this world: and intreating of the Decree of Clement 5. that all Kings depend on the Romane church, This constitution, saith hei 1.867, did so far displease Cynus Pi∣storiensis, that he feared not to say, this text procee∣ded ex Pontificiorum errore, out of the error of those who tooke part with the Pope: adding, that most Lawyers are of the same opinion; and that Bartholus in saying otherwise, speakes rather dicis causa, then ex animo.

Michael Cocciniusi 1.868, Imperator Imperium te∣net à Deo, the Emperour holds his Empire from God, and not from the Pope, and speaking of the translating of the Empire; The Pope, saith he, doth in no other sort transferre it from one to another, quam Imperium transferentibus consenti∣endo,

but by consenting to others who transferre it, or by declaring that it ought to bee transferred; but the translation hath his force and efficacie, not from him, but from the consent of the people.

Hier. Balbusk 1.869, Episcopus Gurcensis, sets downe many and vnanswerable reasons, ex quibus, saith he, planè conuincitur, by which it is cleerely con∣uinced, that neither the Pope nor the Emperour doe one depend on the other, sed vtrumque à solo Deo manare, but that both of them spring from one and the same fountaine, and that is God; euen as l 1.870 Moses and Aaron did either of them receiue their power from God: and for this opinion, pugnantm 1.871 omnes fere Caesarei iur is interpretes, almost all the ciuill Lawyers doe fight, Bartholus, Albericus, and others; yea, diuers also of the Canonists, especi∣ally Pope Innocentius in Cap. licet ex suscept. de foro compet, and Pope Iohn. Ca. Si Imperatori. dist. 96, and Archidiac. dist. 96. ca. Duo sunt. The same also is taught, saith hen 1.872, by Petrus de Ancona and Thomas Aquinas lib. de reg. princip. who saith, that there are two mysticall bodies of Christ, the one spirituall, in which the Pope is cheefe; the other tem∣porall, in which the Emperour is cheefe: and Christ being the head, influit primario, doth immediatly giue the influence of power and dignitie to ei∣ther: and then for the full resolution of the mat∣ter, and leasto 1.873 any should hereafter erre in this, wherein the dignitie and maiestie of the Empire con∣sists, he sets downe verbatim the Constitution of Lewis of Bauare, which was made, as he saith, om∣ni ambiguitate mature discussa, euery ambiguitie

being maturely and exactly discussed by Bi∣shops: one part of which Decree is this that the Imperiall dignitie and power, à solo Deo dependet, depends onely of God, and that it is a pestiferous doctrine by which the Deuill hath raised strife and se∣dition, to say that the Imperiall dignitie or power is of the Pope.

Onuphriusb 1.874 speaking of the ancient Popes, saith, They were honoured as heads of the Christian Religion, and as Christs Vicares, but their authoritie extended no further, then to doctrines of faith, and they were subiect to Emperours, and did all things at their commaund: they were created by them, to Iudge of Emperours they durst not. Gregorie the seuenth first of all, and besides the custome of his Ancestors, contemning the Imperiall authority and power, was bold to depriue the Emperour of his kingdome. A thing not heard of before that age; for those things which are reported of Arcadius, Anastasius, and Leo Iconomachus are but fables.

Papirius Massonusc 1.875, vtterly dislikes the fact of Boniface the eight, in claiming the supremacy as wel in temporall as in spirituall matters, he cites and commends the words of Petrarch, wherein hee saith, that Boniface like Iupiter Olimpius, fulmi∣nabat de terris, thundred in the earth with threats and menacing Edicts: he cals Boniface Tyran∣num Sacerdotum, a tyrant of Bishops; and in the end admonisheth Popes, not to make Kings their enemies, for let not Popes thinke that God hath made them froenos regibus, to be as bridles to Kings, to curb them as they list like vnruly Horses, let

them admonish, let them pray, to threaten to terri∣fie, to make warres, Episcopos non decent, doe not beseeme Bishops.

Sir Thomas Moored 1.876, That which Christ com∣manded Peter, Put thy sword into thy scabbard, is as if he had said, neither will I bee defended with this sword, and I haue chosen thee into that place, vt non tali gladio te pugnare velim, sed gladio verbi Dei, that I will not haue thee to fight with such a a sword, but with the sword of Gods word, Let the materiall sword be put vp into his place, put it into the hands of secular Princes, you that are my Apostles, haue another sword to vse.

Steph. Gardinere 1.877 writ a booke, de vera obedien∣tia, wherein he fully and substantially refutes the Popes supremacie, and that euen in Ecclesiasti∣call causes, prouing that the sword of the Church extends no further, but to teaching and excommuni∣cation, and that the Soueraignety of gouernment, as well in Ecclesiasticall as in Temporall causes, belongs to Princes. This also he confirmed by his sacred oathf 1.878. I Steph. Gardiner do promise and sweare to you Henrie my Lord, King of England and France, atque in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae imme∣diate sub Christo supremo Capiti, and the supreme head of the Church of England, next and im∣mediatly vnder Christ, that I shall not giue, or cause to be giuen to any forren Potentate, Prince, or Prelate, no not to the Bishop of Rome any oath or feol∣ti••, directly or indirectly▪ but shall performe faith, truth, and obedience to your royall Maiesty, as to my supreame Lord, neither shall I consent that the Bi∣shop

of Rome shall haue or exercise here any authority or iurisdiction. Further, I doe professe that the Papa∣cie of Rome is not ordained of God, and that the Pope is not to be called supreame, nor vniuersall Bi∣shop, and much more to the like purpose. To all this he swore, subscribed, and set his hand and Seale, an. 1534.

To this booke De vera obedienda, Edmund Bon∣nerg 1.879 B. of London prefixed a Preface, wherein among other words tending to the approbation of that Booke, he sayth of the Pope, That he is a rauening Wolfe dressed in sheepes clothing; he cals him Iupiter of Olympus, which falsly hath arrogated to himself an absolute power without controulement; that hee stirred vp other Kinges and Princes traite∣rously against the King; that it is no new thing to bee against the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome; that the Popes supremacie is falsly pretended; that the booke of Gard. will well content those who fauour the truth and hate the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and his Satanicall fraudulent falshood. Besides the same Bonner did take the very like oath as Gardiner had done, subscribing to it, and confirming it, both by his hand and Seale.

The like oath for acknowledgement of the Kings Soueraignetie not onely in Temporall but in Ecclesiasticall Causes, and condemning the Popes vsurpation in them both, was taken by Ioh. Stokesleyh 1.880, Bishop of London, Edward Le, Arch-bishop of Yorke, Cuthbard Tunstall, B. of Durham, and many moe.

The Vniuersitie of Cambridgei 1.881, though then addicted to Popish Religion, hauing debated and discussed this point, resolued in this manner, We affirme it as a conclusion vndoubted, that the Bi∣shop of Rome hath no more authority and iurisdiction giuen him by God in the Scriptures, ouer this Realme of England, then any other externe Bishop hath: and that is none at all.

Card. Poolek 1.882, By these words it is shewed, that Christs Kingdome was spirituall and celestiall; his Church is not Regnum huius mundi, no kingdome of this world, but of heauen: This Kingdome Christ hath left to S^t. Peter, and his Successours; And though he calll 1.883 it Imperium totius orbis, an Empire of the whole world, yet hee plainely shewesm 1.884 that he meanes not that it is any Tem∣porall Empire, Such as takes away others Empires and Kingdomes, but a Spirituall, such as by spiritu∣all direction corroborates, and confirmes them all, by drawing them vnto faith and pietie.

Card. Alanen 1.885, one of their learnedest, and most eager maintainers of the Popes supremacie in spirituall matters, sets this downe as a rule; Qui∣libet princeps, summus est suorum, etiam Episcopo∣rum gubernator, Euery Prince is the Supreame Gouernour, euen of his Bishops, but not in all causes: he meanes in Temporall, but not in Spi∣rituall. Againeo 1.886, Princes quoad regnum suum & ciuilem gubernationem nullos superiores agnoscunt, doe hold none to be their Superiors, in respect of their Kingdomes and ciuill gouernment: and he euery where insists on this.

The Diuines of Rhemesp 1.887 alledge and approue that saying of Hosius, and call them godly words, Neither is it lawfull for vs (Bishops) to hold an Em∣pire in earth, neither h••st thou O Emperour, power ouer incens•• and sacred things.

Stapletonq 1.888, It is true that the Prince is supreme Gouernour of all persons, as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall: And againer 1.889, alledging and allow∣ing that saying of Constantine, You are Bishops within and I without the Church; hee thus ex∣pounds them, you doe praesse, are cheefe in Ecclesi∣asticall causes (to wit, for deciding of doubts of faith in them) I in secular affaires, and for orde∣ring them.

Nich. Sanderss 1.890, There are two powers in the Church, vna tantum spiritualis cuiusmodi est illa ministrorum, the former is onely spirituall, and such is the power of Bishops: the other is mixt, being originally secular, but in respect of the end spirituall, such is the power of Kings. Againet 1.891, we doe not say that all Kingdomes and Dominions are in all things subiect to the Church by diuine law: then certainely is not the Pope the Temporall Monarch ouer them all.

Vegau 1.892, Wee must here say as generally doe the Fathers of the Church, Hierom, Austen, Am∣brose, Chrysostome, and Cassidore, that Dauid said this, because being a King, nemini nisi Deo sub∣debatur, he was subiect to none but to God, Hee was bound by no humane lawes: for a King, though he be subiect to humane lawes, in respect of direction, yet not in respect of coaction.

Pereriusy 1.893 the Iesuite, saith of that precept of S^t. Paul, Let euery soule be subiect to the higher power; That it is meant onely of secular power: and euery soule, that is euery man (is not the Pope one?) ought to be subiect to those secular powers, in those things which they may lawfully commaund.

Bishop Canusz 1.894 approues the profession of faith made by Pope Agatho, subscribed vnto and allowed by the sixt Councell. Now in that profes∣sion the Pope with all the Westerne Bishops, most cleerely acknowledgea 1.895 the Emperor to be their Lord, and themselues his seruants, their Citie and Prouince, his seruile Cittie, and seruile Pro∣uince. An euidence that neither Agatho, nor the sixt Councell, nor Canus, (nor any who approue that Councell) thought the Pope a Temporall Monarch aboue the Emperour.

Corn. Ianseniusb 1.896, Although Peters power bee in earth, yet Christ said not that he would giue him the keyes of the kingdome of earth, but of the king∣dome of heauen▪ that Peter might know, suam pote∣statem extendi tantum ad spiritualia, that his po∣wer did extend onely to spirituall matters, which belong to the kingdome of heauen, and not to temporall things, but onely as they are referred to spirituall.

Franc. Costerusc 1.897 the Iesuite, Christ by his com∣ming did not change the Politicall administration or gouernment, but left it vnto Princes, and commaun∣ded to giue to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.

Iacobus de Valentiad 1.898 entreating of Dauid, saith, that he offended only to God, Quia nullum alium

superiorem habebat, because he had none but God aboue him, And being a King, he could be punished by none other.

Lorinusb 1.899 the Iesuite, God onely is able to punish the sinne of him that was a King, nee superiorem haberet, and who had none but God Superiour vnto him. Againe, whereas Cassiodore saith, that the King is punishable onely by God, Turrecre∣mata obserues, that this is not because the seculare Magistrate, is with vs more worthy then the Ec∣clesiasticall, but because Rex in suo ordine non habet superiorem, the King in his owne Order (of secu∣lar Gouernors) hath none aboue him.

Hector Pintusc 1.900, In spirituall matters Bishops are aboue Kings, but in secular matters, Reges non subijciuntur sacerdotibus, Kings are not subiect to Bishops; Againe, Habent Reges in temporalibus superiorem neminem, Kings haue none aboue them in secular matters.

Thom. Hardingd 1.901, The Kings place is cheefe a∣mong the lay, euen when they are in the Church at the seruice of God; and without the Church in all temporall things and causes, hee is ouer the Priests themselues.

Iames Bosgrauee 1.902, a Iesuite, and with them an holy Confeffour and Martyrf 1.903; I professe before God, that I doe thinke, and am in conscience perswa∣ded, that the Pope nec de facto, nec de iure, neither hath, nor ought to haue power to loose the subiects of any Prince from their fidelitie.

Iohn Rishtong 1.904, another of their Confessors al∣so,

made the like profession; adding further, as Bosgraue and Iohn Hart also did, Thatg 1.905 they would not reuolt from the Queene, nor forsake their obedience to her, though the Pope himselfe should come with forces against her. The like profession was made by Henry Hortonh 1.906 another of their ho∣ly Martyrsi 1.907.

Iohn Hartk 1.908 another of their Confessors, I thinke that although the spirituall power bee more excellent then the temporall, yet they are both of God, neither doth the one depend on the other. Whereupon I gather this certaine conclusion, that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to bee a temporall Lord o∣uer Kings and Princes, is vnreasonable, and vnpro∣fitable altogether.

Dureusl 1.909 the Iesuite, approues that saying of Bernard, Both Swords are the Churches, but the material is to be vsed for the Church, the spiritual by the Church. Now it is as cleere as the Sunne, that Saint Bernard denied temporall Monarchi∣call authority to all Bishops, and particularly to the Pope.

Adam Blackuodeusm 1.910, If Kings offend, God on∣ly, and no man is to be their Iudge. Againen 1.911, they are set in the place of God, to rule and re∣straine others, not that they should be restrained a quoquam, by any; then sure not by the Pope, for Kings rule their subiects, but ouer Kings themselues, Solius est Imperium Iouis, God only is a ruler of them.

Guil. Barclay,o 1.912 If Kings offend they are to be iud∣ged by God only, for they are subiect only to

God; which I meane of temporal iudgement & sub∣iection. Againep 1.913, speaking of Thomas Bozius, who stiffely holds the Pope to bee a Temporall Mo∣narch of the World, he calls him, Parasitum Papa∣lem, the Popes Parasite, his opinion he calls it de∣liriumq 1.914, a very dotage: and whereas Card. Hosti∣ensis is of the same opinion, he saithr 1.915; That opinion of Hostiensis, à Theologis, firmissima ratione est dā∣nata, is condemned by Diuines, & that by a strong reason. He addess 1.916 of the same opinion of Bozi∣us, and Hostiensis, that it is Putida opinio quae sol••s ineptijs, & captiunculis suffulta est, a putid opini∣on, which is supported onely by foolery and so∣phistrie. Yea, he proceeds further, and condemnes t 1.917 both the direct and indirect power, claimed to the Pope in Temporall matters; prouingu 1.918 that the Pope neither directly nor indirectly & in order to the spi∣rituall good, hath any power to excommunicate or depose Kings, or to absolue subiects from their othes.

Ninianus Wincetusx 1.919 This is the true diuinity of the Prophet, that a King, though hee bee neuer so wicked, Dei iudicio relinquendus est, it is to be left to Gods iudgement. Skulkeniusy 1.920 confesseth, that thus much is meant by Wincetus, That the King hath no politicall or temporall power aboue him, to iudge or punish him.

Pet. Pitheusz 1.921, in his booke published by the authority of the French Court, saith, the liberty of France re••ies on two Maximes, quas Francia semper vt certas approbauit, which France hath euer approoued as certaine. The one is this, that the Pope cannot commaund or decree ought either in

generall or in particular, quod attinet ad res tempora∣les, concerning any temporall matters within the kingdome of France.

Iacob. Leschesseriusa 1.922 sets downe this as the foundation whereon the liberties of the French Church are built, that neither Pope, nor the whole Clergie ius habet de vlla re temporali statuendi, hath any right to decree ought in temporal mat∣ters, multo minus de vllo regno, much lesse of any Empire or supreame kingdome.

Of late yeares there was a memorable contro∣uersie betwixt the Pope and the Venetiansb 1.923, the Pope pretended their Lawesc 1.924 to bee contrary to the libertie of the Church; and therefore to be nul∣las & inualidas, to be no lawes, nor of any force: And he commaunded the State, vnder the censure of excommunication, to reuoke and adnull the same lawes. Did they regard these thundering threats, excommunications, or Interdicts? Did they hearken to his commaund, or yeeld obedience to this their Monarch? No, they constantly per∣sisted in defence of their lawes, and plainly told d 1.925 him, That the reuoking of those lawes, which for so long time had beene continued, was the euersion of the foundation of their State; that they were made summi Principis authoritate, by the authoritie of the supreame Prince; (by this they meant their own State) and they conclude, that they were sub∣iect to no censure; yea they proclaimede 1.926 the Popes excommunications and Interdicts against them to bee an abuse of his power, to be such as that the person or State who hath not Principem superiorem, a Su∣perior

Prince vnto it (such they esteeme them∣selues) may and ought to resist, by all meanes granted by God. So in defence of their owne Soueraigne∣tie, they demonstrated to the eyes of the whole world, the Pope not to be a Monarch, no not in Italy, nor in his next neighbour Citties, much lesse ouer all Kingdomes and Empires vpon earth.

Anto. Quirinusf 1.927 in defence of the Venetian State, writes thus; Christ did not diminish the rights of Empires, Cities and Princes, but he confir∣med the same, yea, he would not in any sort meddle in that, quod res mundanas & temporales spectat, not with temporall causes. Againeg 1.928, It is most eui∣dent, that the Venetian Common-wealth is as a free Prince, qui à nemine pendet ex natura sui principa∣tus, which by the very nature of Principalitie, depends on none: Againeh 1.929, This Venetian Com∣mon-wealth doth professe Dominium suum à solo Deo habere quod ipsis est ius fundamentale, that it hath their dominion from God onely, and this is the very fundamentall law of their State; and to this subscribed Antonius Rebetti, Michael Angelu, and many others both Diuines and Lawyers.

Frier Pauli 1.930 in the same quarrell writes in this manner, The Venetian State potestatem sibi à Deo datam, exerciseth that power which is giuen vn∣to them by God, euen from the beginning of their State vnto this time: And what power that is, he declares, calling it antiquam & absolutam veri sui Imperij libertatem, the ancient and absolute, (and therefore not depending on the Pope) libertie

of their true Empire.

Card. Bellarminek 1.931 at large handleth this Ar∣gument, concerning which he sets downel 1.932 three assertions, and proues them all. First, that the Pope is not Lord of the whole world: secondly, that he is not Lord of the Christian world: thirdly, that the Pope iure diuino, by any right from Christ, is not Lord of any Prouince or Towne, Nullamque ha∣bet iurisdictionem mere temporalem, and hath no iurisdiction meerely temporall. Yea Bellarmine answeres and refutes, and that very soundly all those reasons which are brought to proue that Christ had any such temporall dominion.

Gretzerl 1.933 not onely defends Bellarmine herein, but refutesm 1.934 the whole dispute of Alex. Carerius, for the Popes temporall Monarchie against Bellar∣mine, and shewes how weake, feeble, and vniust that Anatheman 1.935 is which Carerius denounced a∣gainst Bellarmine, for denying that temporall Mo∣narchie to the Pope.

Skulkeniuso 1.936 saith of Anto. Rossellus, Omnino nobiscum sentit, he is altogether in this matter of our mind; For hee teacheth, that the Pope as Pope hath not the direct dominion of temporall things, & non esse vniuersalem totius orbis Monarcham, and that he is not the vniuersall Monarch of the world. Againe, speaking of those words of Otho Frising. Reges nullum praeter deum supra le habent, Kings haue none aboue them but God, Otho, saith hep 1.937, meant this de superiori politico siue temporali, of a Politicall or Temporall Mo∣narch, such an one Kings haue not aboue them.

Againeq 1.938, The height of Emperours and Kings hath not any temporall power superior to them. In this sence, Independens est à potestate superiore tempora∣li, it doth not depend on a superior power, but hath his immediate dependance on God.

Breirleyr 1.939, in his Apologie for the Romane faith, taken out of diuers wrested and miserably peruerted testimonies of Protestants; and by him called the Protestant Apologie, saith, They exceed measure who load the supreame Pastor of the Church, with incompetent attributes of Tem∣porall authoritie, and of the principalitie of the whole world.

Rob. Parsonss 1.940, that Iesuiticall Polypragmon in all States, Whereas they say, that wee Catholikes, ascribe Monarchicall, ciuill power and Soueraigne∣tie ouer Kings vnto the Pope: this of ciuil Soueraign∣ty, is a meere fiction and calumniation, for wee as∣cribe no such power vnto the Pope ouer Princes, or their subiects, but that Soueraignetie onely which belongs to the spirituall head, which is onely spiritu∣all, and for spirituall ends. Againet 1.941, Though Kings and Emperours he Supreame in Temporall autho∣rity, yet in Spirituall, Bishops are more eminent then they.

George Blackwellu 1.942 their Arch-Priest, hauing by solemne oath professed, That the Pope neither of himselfe, nor by any authory of the Church or See of Rome, hath any power or authority to depose Kings, afterwards not onely maintained the same assertion, but in more expresse manner ex∣plained the same: of the opinion of the Canonists,

that the Pope is directly the Lord of the whole world in temporalibus, he saithx 1.943; That as he sware, so hee doth constantly affirme, that hee holdeth the opinion concerning the Popes direct Dominion in Temporali∣bus, to be vntrue: thaty 1.944 the Pope is not Lord of the whole world; nor yet of the Christian world; that he hath no Temporall dominion of any one place iure diuino. After this he professethz 1.945 further, That as the Pope hath no direct Dominion in Temporali∣bus, so neither hath he indirectly, and in reference to spirituall ends, authority to depose Princes, to ab∣solue subiects, or the like: and that Card. Bellar∣mines reasons, to proue this indirect power in Tem∣poralibus, are weakea 1.946, and insufficient. In summe, that hisb 1.947 iudgement is, that the Popes spirituall au∣thority extends no further, then to the censures of the Church properly so called, and that the Pope hath no authority in Temporalibus, either directly or indi∣rectly to depose Kings.

Temporall things, saith Suaresc 1.948, doe fall but in∣directly vnder the power of the Spirituall, that is, in order to a spirituall end.

Nauard 1.949, Ecclesiasticall power shall extend it selfe so farre, as the order of things supernaturall doth re∣quire, and no further.

The Catholike Authore 1.950 of the Franck dis∣course, entreating of this, which he calls a Iesu∣iticall position, That the Pope hath power to ex∣communicate Kings, to free subiects from their oaths of Allegeance, to depriue them of their Scepters and Crownes, calls it in expresse tearmes a pestilent and pernicious doctrine, flatlyf 1.951 repugnant to the World

and will of God, adding, Thisg 1.952 hath euer beene the iudgement of the Church of France, to excommuni∣cate all those that auouch these and such assertions, as Authors of a barbarous and most accursed do∣ctrine, which begets a world of murders, and a sea of ahhomination.

Another of their Catholikesh 1.953 in his Iesuites Catechisme, We hold it for an Article firme and in∣dubitate, that our King is not subiect to the Popes ex∣communication; And he not onely often inueigh∣eth against that Iesuiticall doctrine of excom∣municating and deposing Kings, but saithi 1.954, That it is an heresie, to approue the killing of Princes, though they be Heretikes.

Permulti alij Angli Catholicik 1.955, very many Eng∣lish Catholikes, doe professe that it is not suffici∣ently proued, either by testimony of Scripture, or A∣postolicall tradition, or by authority of the holy Fa∣thers, or by Theological reason, summum Pontificem vllum prorsus habere ex Christi institutione rerum temporalium dominum, that the Pope hath any dominion at all in Temporall matters granted him from Christ, so that he may either directly or indirectly, that is in respect of the spiriuall good, de∣pose Princes.

Mart. Becanus a Iesuite, published anno 1612. a booke intituled Controuersia Anglicana, wherin he hath these assertions, Catholikesl 1.956 do affirme, and that rightly, that the Pope who may excommunicate Kings, may also depose them: hauing cited many examples of Kings deposed by Popes, he saithm 1.957, What those Popes did, they did by right, and they had

power and authoritie to depose Kings. Then 1.958 vsuall way of deposing Kings, is to absolue subiects à debito vinculo subiectionis, from their due bond of sub∣iection, and this the Pope may lawfully doe: and ma∣ny the like. Of these and like assertions of Beca∣nus, the Facultie of Pariso 1.959 giues this censure, that he falsly ascribeth to Catholikes, the defending of new errors and crimes, that he brings in dangerous scismes, depraues the Scriptures, spoyles Temporall Lords of their rights, makes the killing of Princes which is execrable, to be thought lawfull. Theyp 1.960 call this book of Becanus, Pestilentissimum librum, a most pestilent booke: the doctrine conteined therein, pestilentem doctrinamq 1.961, pestilent do∣ctrine, which robs Princes of their supreame power, and stirres vp subiects to rebellion and parricide. Iohan. Filesacke a Doctor of that Facultie profes∣sethr 1.962 after he had read that booke, alium à se pe∣stilentiorem nunquam visum, that he neuer saw a more pestilent booke. Georg. Erogeriuss 1.963 one of the Sorbonist Doctors, saith, He could not choose, but be exceedingly incensed against Becanus, dirum et pessime feriatum hominum, that wicked and exe∣crable man, he could not but reiect, yea proculcare trample vnder his feete, his maniacall, and demoni∣acall book, and oppose the sacred scripture, aduersus istam pestilentissimam, furiosissimamque Becani buc∣cam, against that most pestilent and furious do∣ctrine of Becanus. Claudius Aquauiuat 1.964, prouost Generall of the Iesuites, censures the selfe∣same booke, as written rashly, as being dis∣allowed by the societie of the Iesuites. Besides these,

Card. Bellarmineu 1.965, (whose very doctrine, and no other, Becanus defends) yea Pope Paulus the fiftx 1.966 himselfe, whose authoritie is therein main∣tained, they both censure that booke as contei∣ning many false, timerarious, scandalous, and sediti∣ous matters, and they vtterly prohibited it to be read, or so much as kept by any, vntill it be corrected.

And to alledge no more, (for it were euen an endlesse and irksome worke to cite all, they be∣ing in number so infinite) I will conclude with that testimonie of Bellarminey 1.967 This, that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediatly any Tempo∣rall power, but onely spirituall, est Catholicorum Theologorumz 1.968 communis sententia, it is the com∣mon iudgement of Catholike Diuines.

Thus we see, that this Temporall Monarchi∣call Soueraigntie now claimed for the Pope, hath beene by Apostles, Councels, Popes, Fathers, Bishops, and learned Writers; yea euen by the most earnest Romanists, and chiefe pillers of their present Church, with an vniforme consent op∣pugned and condemned in all successiue ages of the Church, euen from the daies of Christ vnto this very present time.

CHAP. XII.

That the Popes Temporall Monarchy is condemned by Emperours, Kings, and Imperiall States in the seuerall ages of the Church.

AFter Councels, Fathers, Bishops, and learned Writers in all ages of the Church, by which as you haue seene the Popes tem∣poral Monarchy hath bin con∣dēned, there remaines in the last place one consideration touching Kings and Em∣perours, of whom they pretenda 1.969, that they not onely haue acknowledged this Monarchicall So∣ueraigntie, but in token thereof, haue subiected themselues, and yeelded vp their Kingdomes to the Pope. How to this purpose Steuchus and Gretzer haue published many Writings, Grants, and Dona∣tions of seuerall Kings and Kingdomes, I haue before entreated. To both these I must here ad∣ioyne a Vaticane Manuscript of one Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, from whom both Steuchus and Gretzer borrowed, and with much ease exscribed those very Gifts and Grants which they so ven∣ditate to the world. This Nicholas, being as ear∣nest for the Popes Temporall Monarchy, as ei∣ther Bozius, or Scioppius, tels vs, that Popesb 1.970 as Christs Vicares hauing the fulnesse of power, vtrum∣que

gladium possunt ad libitum exercere, may at their pleasure exercise either sword, Excommuni∣cate, and depose Kings and Emperours. And that both de iure and de facto diuers worthy Popes haue exercised this power, hee shewesc 1.971 by an whole Catalogue of Emperours and Kings, no fewer then 28. deposed by them. For the further aduan∣cing of this Papall Temporall Monarchie, the same Nicholas, hath, and that as he telsd 1.972 vs, with great labour and industry, compiled out of diuerse Re∣gistries and Chronicles, those same (and many o∣ther) writings and grants made to the Popes, of Rome, Italie, Spaine, France, England, Denmarke, Hungarie, Russia, Croatia, Bohemia, and diuers o∣thers, which for the most part in the bookes of Steuchus & Gretzer are to be seen. Nor can either the name of Nicholas, or the Manuscript left by him, adde credit or countenance to those Grants and writings. What worth and credit he and his Records are of, it may be perceiued by his com∣mending of the Chartere 1.973 of Constautines Donation, and diuers such like; but I will onely here menti∣on two of his passages, by which you may conie∣cture his verity in the rest. The former is, Thatf 1.974 whē Constātine builded the Church of our Sauiour in the Laterane (that was as he else-whereg 1.975 saith, The fourth day after he was baptized by Siluester) he pla∣ced in that Church, the Arke of the Testament, which Titus carried away from Ierusalem, the golden Eme∣rods, the golden Mise, the tables of the Testament, the rod of Aaron, the golden pot, with Manna, the seemlesse coat of Christ, the vestment of Iohn Baptist, the sheeres wherwith Iohn the Euangelist was polled.

Rare monuments, able to cause long pilgrimages and deuout adoration, if the Romane Bishops haue kept til these daies those Deposita. The other is the prophesie of Romulus touching Christ. Ni∣cholas entreating of the Pallaces in Rome, (he rec∣kons 16.) In the Pallace of Romulus, who builded Rome, Romulus, saith heg 1.976, set vp his own statue made of gold, saying, Non cadet donec Virgo pariet, This my statue shall not fall till a Virgin bring forth a child. And as soone as euer the Virgin Mary had brought forth Christ, statua illa corruit, saith Nicho∣las, that statue fell downe to the ground. Such rare and admirable Records and Monuments hath Nicholas compiled, and out of him Steuchus and Gretzer published; which though in themselues they might iustly be contemned, yet because the Popes and their flatterers applaud and please themselues with such toyes and fancies, let vs see how weake they are to support that Monarchical Soueraigntie, which they build on such sandy foundations; and I nothing doubt to make it eui∣dent, that by none of all their pretences, none of those most renowned and glorious Empires euer were, or euer will be brought vnder the yoake of subiection to the Popes Temporall Monarchy.

Here first in general for al kingdomes it may be rightly said, that the admitting of this one Vni∣uersall Temporall Monarchy of the Pope, is the vtter ruinating, adnulling and annihilating of all other kingdomes in the world. Scioppius truly saithb 1.977, This one kingdome, tollit omnia alia regna mūdi, doth abolish all other temporal kingdoms.

And to the like purpose Amb. Catharinusc 1.978, If the Pope be the temporall Monarch of the whole world, nulli ergo vere terrarum Domini essent in tempora∣libus, sed solus Pontifex, then should none else be truly Temporall Kings here vpon earth, but one∣ly the Pope. For seeing Soueraigntie (which as I haue formerly proued, is the very essence of Re∣gall authoritie) should then be in the Pope a∣lone, he alone and none else should truly bee King: Al others should be but Viceroyes, Deputies, or Lieutenants vnder him, subiect to him, as their supreame Lord both for their persons & possessi∣ons. So this very position of the Popes Vniuer∣sall temporall Dominion aboue all Kings, im∣plyes an euident and vnauoydable contradiction to it selfe. For if the Pope bee such a Monarch, there can be no other Kings to acknowledge this Papall Monarchy. And if there bee any other Kings to acknowledge this, euen eo nomine, for that they are Kings, they doe directly deny and ouerthrow his Monarchicall Soueraigntie.

But if you please to descend to particulars, it will cleerely appeare, that the acknowledgment of this Papall Monarchy is neither so generall, nor so true as they pretend and boast. Let vs be∣gin with the most Christian King, and his King∣dome of France; for which there are so many euidences easie to be produced, that by it alone the pretended Temporal Monarchy of the Pope is vndeniably refuted. Of it Ioh. Maiord 1.979 saith, The Pope hath nullum titulum, no title at all in tem∣porall matters in the Kingdome of France. The French

King, saith Ioh. Igneusc 1.980, Non recognoscit superio∣rem in temporalibus, doth not acknowledge any to be his superior in Temporall matters. Guil. Benedictus speaking of the French State, saithd 1.981, If one doe appeale, it must be to the King, not to the Pope, for seeing he is an Emperour in his kingdome, and the Empire is notorie quoad temporalia à supe∣rioritate Papae exemptum, notoriously knowne for Temporall matters to be exempted from the su∣periority of the Pope, there is no appeale from the King, seeing the kingdome of France is none of those which are held in fee from the Pope. Aegidius Romanus writes verye 1.982 fully to this purpose, The French King à solo Deo immediate tenet & possidet Regnum suum, non ab homine quoquā, holds imme∣diatly his kingdome from God only, & not from any man. He holds it not of the Pope, neither as he is a man, neither as he is the Vicar of Christ. And if you reply, that though he doe not de facto acknowledge any Superior, yet de Iure, he ought so to doe. Re∣spondemus quod non, we answer (saith he,) that de Iure he ought not. The Frenchf 1.983 King is not sub∣iect to the Pope, nec ei tenetur•• respondere, neither ought to answer him for the Fee of his kingdome. The French King, saith Cassaneusg 1.984, acknowledgeth no Superior; Heh 1.985 in his kingdome, like the Emperor solus in temporalibus praeesse debet, alone ought to be Supreame in Temporall matters. Againei 1.986, Al∣though Boniface the eight by his Constitution sent to Philip the faire, declared the kingdome of France to be subiect to the Pope in temporall matters, yet Cle∣ment the fift his successor, eam constitutionem re∣uocauit,

reuoked that Constitution made by Bo∣niface, as it is euident in the Extrau•• cap. Meruit. I omit many other like euident testimonies, the ra∣ther because I haue often before touched this point; and that one expresse Confession, yea De∣cree of Pope Innocentius is so cleere, that there needeth no further proofe in this matter. The French King, saith hek 1.987, superiorem in Temporalibus minime recognoscit, doth acknowledge none to be his superiour in Temporall affaires. Of which words Cassaneus thusl 1.988 writeth, I finde it determi∣ned by the Popes, that the French King acknowled∣geth none to bee his superior in temporail matters, ca. Per Venerabilem: which text loquitur de Iure, et non de facto, speakes not of the fact, but of the right, because the Pope (in his Decrees) namquam loqui∣tur in facto sed in iure tantum, neuer declares what is done, but what in right ought to be done. And though it were easie by very many exam∣ples of the dealings of the French Kings with the Pope to confirme this truth, some of which I haue before expressed, yet I will mention at this time no more, but that one of Philip the faire. He to the letters of Boniface the eight, signifying to him, that he was subiect to the Pope, both in tem∣porall and spirituall matters, returned an answere to Boniface in this mannerm 1.989: Sciat tua maxima fa∣tuitas, Let your great foolishnesse vnderstand and know, that in temporall matters we are subiect to none, and those who thinke otherwise (one of the cheefe of which was the Pope) dementes et fatuos reputamus, we account mad men and fooles.

For the Catholicke King, and his kingdomes of Spaine, how directly repugnant to this Papall Monarchy are those cleare and euident Testimo∣nies of their best learned writers of that Nation? That of Cardinall Turrecrematan 1.990, The Pope by reason of the Papacy hath no direct power in tempo∣rall matters, extra principatum suum ecclesiasticum, out of his owne Ecclesiasticall principallitie: no part of which is the kingdome of Spaine. That of Franc. à Victoriao 1.991, There is no direct tempo∣rall power at all in the Pope: then certainely no Monarchicall soueraigntie in Spaine. Whereof he giues a true reason, because there is no power in the Pope, which is directed to a temporall end: and such is that power which is meerely temporall. That of Dom. Sotop 1.992, Euery King (then doubtlesse the King of Spaine) is in his owne kingdome the su∣preame Iudge for temporall matters. That of Did. Couarruuias ^r a Lawyer and Bishop also,q 1.993 Semper mansit apud Regem ipsum suprema iurisdictio, Su∣preame iurisdiction remained euer in the King of Spaine himselfe. And this he prooues besides other reasons, by a pragmaticall sanction of Ferdi∣nand and Elizabeth, an. 1502. That of Iohn de la Puente, their late and famous Chronicler, whose scope is to shew the conueniencie of a double Ca∣tholicke Monarchy.s 1.994 The one of which onely, (to wit the Spirituall) to belong to the Pope, whom he compares to the Greater light, vt praesit vrbi & orbi: The other (to wit the Temporall) to belong to him, whom hee compares to the lesser light, vt subdatur vrbi & dominetur orbi, the very fronti∣spice of his booke doth make most euident. To these Spanish writers of best note, may be added

that of Iohn Maiors 1.995, The Pope nullum habet titulum super regem Hispaniarum in temporalibus, hath no title or authority ouer the king of Spaine in tem∣porall matters: And that of Cassancust 1.996, Those Prin∣ces which do acknowledg any superior vnto them, are called superillustnes. Among which hee expresly reckons the Kings of Spaine.

How distastfull was this Papall Monarchy to that kingdome, when not many yeares since the wholeu 1.997 eleuenth tome of Card. Baronius his ecclesia∣sticall Annales were by the kings Edict prohibited, & that vnder the paine of high treason either to be prin∣ted or sold in Spaine, because there was inserted in∣to that Tome, the booke of Baron, touching the Monarchy of Sicilie, wherein he labors to proue▪ not the king of Spaine, but the Pope to be the Mo∣narch thereof? When Card. Columna further writ a very sharp censurex 1.998 both of Baron himselfe, and of his book, taking it indignly (as iustly he might) that the king of Spainey 1.999 qui ea Monarchia potitur et fruitur, who doth now (saith he) possesse & en∣ioy, & that also, haereditario iurez 1.1000, by a rightful in∣heritance, that Monarchy, should bee called by Card. Baronius a monstera 1.1001, a tyrantb 1.1002, one worse then the enemies of the Church. Will they patiently en∣dure the Pope to be called the Supreame Direct Monarch and Temporall Lord of all Spaine, yea of all the world, who so hardly can digest his Tē∣porall Monarchy in that one little Iland?

Haue they not also giuen diuers eminent and euident tokens of their dislike to that Monar∣chy? When Clement the seuenth fearing the great∣nesse of Charles the fifth, then king of Spaine, soughtc 1.1003 by cunning dealing to depriue him of Millane, and for that purpose made an holy

league, as they called it, Charles being for this & some other like causes incensed, sent anm 1.1004 army into Italic vnder the leading of Carolus Burbonius. When the Caesarean army approched to Rome, the Romane Iupiter thunders out his Excommu∣nicationsn 1.1005 against the Lutherans, (so he called the French;) and against the Marranes, (so in con∣tumely he called the Spaniards:) Did either the Spanish or French feare or regard those cen∣sures? Nothing lesse. They besiegedo 1.1006 Rome, tooke it, and made such hauock therein, vt ab Hunnorum et Gothorū diebus, that the like miserable spoyle had neuer bene seene, since the dayes that the Gothes and Vandals surprised Rome: or as Onuphriusp 1.1007 sayth: Neuer in the memory of man, maiori trucu∣lentia saeuitū, was there greater cruelty vsed either against Turkes or most deadly enemies. The Pope and thirteene Cardinals who being taken prisoners, and kept in the Castle of Saint Angelo, were glad toq 1.1008 make couenants vpon very hard conditions. First, that the Pope cuncta quae Caesar imperasset se facturū polliceretur, should promise to do whatsoeuer Charles the fift should command. Next, that himselfe with his 13 Cardinals should stay in prison till their ransomes (which surmounted many hundred thousand pounds) were paid: then to be kept at Naples or Caieta, and there exspect what Charles the Emperour would decree of them.

It is a wonder to see how shamelesse Surius, Card. Alane, and others are, in striuing to excuse Charles 5. in this action. All this was done (say theyr 1.1009) insciente et inuito Caesare, Charles neither

knowing, nor approouing thereof: and in token of his dislike heereof, as soone as the report came into Spaine, presently the King commanded those sportes and ioyfull celebrities (which then were vsed for ioy of his sonne Philips birth) to be left off, yea hee dili∣gently excused himselfe both to the Pope and other Princes. Thus they; whose whole narrations is quite contrary to the truth. For first Charless 1.1010 purposely sent his army into Italy, qui cunctis mina∣retur, threatning reuenge to all who were confe∣derates in that holy league: and the Pope was au∣thor conspirationis, the very author and ring-lea∣der of that conspiracie: Then, Guiccardine (who is of all the most faithful relator of these matters, happening in his owne time) expresly notest 1.1011, that Charles though in words he said he was sory for the Popes being taken, tamen ei gratissimam fuisse animadvertebatur, yet it was obserued to haue beene gladsome newes vnto him. Neither did he, saith Guiccardine, conceale this, seeing incep∣tos ob filij natalem ludos, non intermisit, he did not so much as breake off or interrupt those playes, sports, and celebrities which was then begun for ioy of his sonnes birth; yea, hee was so farre also from excusing this fact either to the Pope or o∣ther Princes, that hee purposed to haue brought the Pope prisoner into Spaine: but partly the infa∣mie of doing so with the vicare of Christ restrained him; and partly the earnest sollicitation of Henrie the eight, King of England, of Francis the French King, and others mooued him to send to

Lanoy, the Generall of his armie, to set the Pope at liberty.

The same Charles vpon another displeasure against the Pope, set forth an Edictu 1.1012 in Spaine, whereby he prohibited his subiects to haue their causes debated in the Romane Court. Whence vp∣on a solemne day of pleading, a Spaniard in the Kings name openly in the Romane Court, com∣manded diuers, vt a litibus in eo foro prosequen∣dis desisterent, that they should desist from prose∣cuting their causes in the Popes Court.

The like may be seene in Philip the second, sonne of this Charles. He to reuenge the mani∣fold iniuriesx 1.1013 offered vnto him by Paul the fourth, senty 1.1014 Duke D'alua with a mighty army into Italy against the Pope; Qui Pontificiae ditionis fines perpopulatus, who hauing exceedingly wasted the Popes Territories, besiedged the Cittie, spoyled the Cittizens, burnt many faire houses, slew many of the people, Pontificem sacra ditione exturba∣turus, and would haue thrust the Pope from his patrimony and holy seat, if the French King ayding the Pope, had not remooued the danger at that time. Doe these seeme either in Charles or Philip or others acknowledgements of the Popes supreame and Vniuersall Tempo∣rall Monarchy?

Now whereas Careriusz 1.1015 and Thomas Bozi∣us boaste, that the Pope gaue the Indies vn∣to the King of Spaine, by vertue of which Donation hee still holds them; they are many

waies, and childishly mistaken in this matter. The Kings of Spaine haue to those parts of the Indies which they iustlie possesse, a farre stronger title then any Charter from Pope Alexander, as Franc. à Victoria at large declaresa 1.1016. Nay that Charter of Alexander to giue them no title at all thereunto, Card. Bellarmine doth witnesse, who thus writeth; Theb 1.1017 Pope diuided the Indies betwixt the Kings of Spaine and Portugall, not to this end that they should subdue those Infidels, et eorum reg∣na occupare, and take their kingdomes vnto themselues, sed solum vt eo adducerent praedicatores, but onely that they should bring thither Prea∣chers of the Christian faith, and defend them, and such Christians as they conuerted. There may also another answer be giuen to Carerius, touch∣ing that Papall Donation; euen the same which Attabaliba an Indian King, of the Prouince of Peruana, gaue in this very matter: but the answer is such, as argues more acutenesse, magnanimity, & wisdome, thē one would easily expect of a bar∣barous Indian. Vincentius the Dominican, made a pithyc 1.1018 Oration to perswade him to the Christian faith, he declared vnto him both the Popes power, who had giuen those vnknowne Countries to the King of Spaine; and the puissance of the King of Spaine, totius orbis Monarchae, as hee there cals him: aduising Attabaliba to embrace his friend∣ship, and become tributarie vnto him; which if hee would not willingly doe, he should vi ••t armis be en∣forced thereunto. To this Attabaliba answered, That hee did willingly ••ccept the friendship of the

highest Monarch of the world, but it was not equall that a free King should become tributary to him whō he neuer saw. And for the Pope he added, Pontifi∣cem insigniter fatuum et impudentem esse, eo facile prodi, quod alienatam liberaliter largiatur, the Pope to be exceeding foolish and shamelesse is hereby euident, in that he is so liberall in giuing that which is none of his own, but belongs to others. For the other example of the Kingdome of Na∣uar, of which Scioppius saith, that it is held nullo alio tuulo, but by the Popes Donation: were it free to dis∣course of such points, it were easie to shew, how their owne Genebrardc 1.1019 fets downe another, and farre stronger Title to that Kingdome, yea such also, as wholy excludes the Popes donation: easie againe to shew, how by that, which some o∣therd 1.1020 of their owne Catholikes relate touching that very kingdome of Nauar, that there is no cō∣fort for any Prince to hold any kingdome by that title. But as it was vnfit for Scioppius to be so peremptory, so neither is it fit for me, nor will I presume to enter into the discussion of such ar∣guments. This which I haue already sayd being sufficient to be spoken of the kingdome of Spain.

For the kingdome of England, their insolency in pretending the Popes Temporall Soueraignty ouer it, enforceth mee more at large to manifest the vanity of such their boasting. And I nothing doubt, but to make cleere vnto them that which Bracton sayth, and thate 1.1021 most truely, Euery subiect is vnder the King, ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo but the King himselfe is subiect to none but onely to God. Let vs begin at the Conquest,

which fell out in that very age wherein both the mists of superstition had much darkened the faith, and the pride of the Romane See, by the meanes of Hildebrand, was now aduanced to the zenith of their highest exaltation.

How farre that renowned Conquerour was from acknowledging their Papall Monarchy, or superiority in this kingdome, his owne Epistle written to Pope Hildebrand, recorded in an an∣cient Manuscriptb 1.1022 among the Epistles of Lan∣franc, doth demonstrate. Hubert your Legate came vnto me, warning mee from your Holinesse, that I should doe feolty vnto you, and to your succes∣sors, and warning me also to consider better of that money which my ancestors vsed to send to the Ro∣mane Church. I haue yeelded to the one, I haue not yeelded to the other. Fidelitatem facere nolui, nec volo, I neither would doe feolty to you, neither will I. Because I neither promised it my selfe, nor doe I finde, that my predecessours haue done that to your predecessours. Could hee more fully or ex∣presly deny that Papall Soueraignty, and testifie his Ancestors, the Kings of England neuer to haue acknowledged the same?

In the next Kings dayes there fell out great contention betwixt William Rufus, the sonne of the Conquerour, and Anselme Arch-bishop of Canterbury. Whenc 1.1023 Anselme shewed his pur∣pose to goe to Rome to Pope Vrbane, the King waxed exceeding angry thereat, and told him, quod nullus Archiepiscopus vel Episcopus Regni sui, curiae Ro∣manae vel Papae subesset, That no Arch-bishop or

Bishop of this Kingdome was subiect to the Ro∣mane Court, or to the Pope. Specially, seeing the King of England eandem potestatem haberet, had the same power in his kingdome, (and that euen fromd 1.1024 the Conuersion of this Realme vnto the Chri∣stian faith) which the Emperour challenged in the Empire, And whate 1.1025 said he, hath the Pope to doe in the Empire, or in my kingdome touching temporall liberties? It is his duty to be carefull for the soule of man, and to see that heresies doe not spring vp. Yea Anselmef 1.1026, ob hanc rem vt laesae maiestatis reus po∣stulatur, was accused as guiltie of high treason for this very cause, of seeking to appeale to the Pope: and to this accusation plurimi Episcopi suum calculum adijciebant, most of the Bishops consen∣ted that it was iust and right. Neither would the King make any agreement with Anselme, nisi prote∣staretur cum iuramento, vnlesse he made protesta∣tion, and that with an oath, that he would not obey the command of Pope Vrbane; but if hee would sweare not to goe to the Pope, necg 1.1027 pro quouis nego∣tio Romanae sedis audientiam appellaturum, neither to appeale to the Romane See for any businesse whatsoeuer, then he should enioy all fauour and tranquilitie. If otherwise he would aduenture to passe ouer sea, that is to say, to goe to the Pope, nul∣lam reuertendi spem in posterum ei futuram, hee told him he should neuer returne into his Realm againe.

In the time of Henry the first, when Anselme was recalled to his See, the contention about In∣uestitures, which was begun with William Rufus,

continuing, Anselmeh 1.1028 writ thus to Pope Pasca∣lis, I shewed them the Apostolique Decree, that none should take Inuestiture of Lay men, or become the Kings man for it: and that no man should pre∣sume to consecrate him that did offend herein. When the King, his Nobles, and the Bishops themselues and others of lower degree, heard these things, they tooke them so greeuously, that they said they would in no case agree to this thing; (tam iniquo Papae decreto, as othersi 1.1029 say;) and that they would rather driue me out of the kingdome, and forsake the Romish Church, then keep those things: or as othersk 1.1030 set it downe, rather then approue this Decree or sentence of the Pope, à iure Regis Regnique consuetudine prorsus a∣lienam, being vtterly repugnant to the right of the King, and custome of the kingdome. Thur∣stane being elect Archbishop of yorke, obteinedl 1.1031 leaue of the same King Henrie the first, to goe to the Councell at Rhemes, but with condition, that hee should not receiue consecration from the Pope. When contrary to his promise, hee receiued the Papall con∣secration, the King vnderstanding thereof, Omnem dominationis suaelo cum ei inter dixit, he forbad him to come within his kingdomes or dominions. Euident tokens that the King and State of Eng∣land, held not the Pope for their Temporall Lord, seeing euen in Spirituall causes they yeel∣ded so slender subiection, that they were ready to renounce and forsake the Romane Church, rather then consent to the Pope in those things.

In the reigne of Henrie the second, the Kingm 1.1032 called a very great assembly to Clarendon, at

which were present the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earles, Barons, and Nobles of the Kingdome. In it was made a Recognition and confirmation of the customes and liberties of the kingdome, anciently v∣sea in the times of former Kings, and which debe∣bant in Regno, & ab omnibus teneri, ought to bee obserued in this kingdome, and mainteined by all. One of those ancient customes was this, That no Archbishop, Bishop, or other person of this kingdome, might goe out of the Realme (to wit, to the Pope) abque licentia Domini Regis, without the Kings leaue: and if the King granted them leaue, yet they should put in security, that neither in going, returning, nor staying, they should doe ought to the hurt or dammage of the King or kingdome. Another custome was, That if any appealed, it should be from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop, from him to the Arch-bishop, and from him to the King, ita quod non debeat vltra procedi absque assensu Do∣mini Regis, from the King they might appeale to none, nor proceed further in the cause with∣out the Kings licence. When the King and whole State confirmed these decrees, they did euen demonstrate, that they held not the Pope to be a superior Lord or higher Iudge, then the King, no not in Ecclesiasticall, much lesse in ci∣uill causes. To these Decrees at Clarendon, Thomas Becketn 1.1033 (whom they call a Martyr, but who was in truth, one of the most insolent and periured Traitors, that euer England bare or bred) con∣sented and swore to obserue the same, and that bona fide & absque malo ingenio in perpetuum, faithfully

and without fraud for euer, as did also the other Bishops, Abbots, and Clergie, with the Earles, Ba∣rons, and all the Nobles. Beckot not long after (such is the bonafides of a true Romanist) repentedo 1.1034 of this ••ath, procured absolution from it at the hands of Alexander, the supposed Pope: (for in truth he was but an intruder and Pseudo-Pope, as by that which I haue formerlyp 1.1035 said, is euident) and at∣temptedq 1.1036 to goe to Rome without the Kings leaue, but was driuen backe by the wind: for which and other offences he was called, and came to ano∣ther great assemblyr 1.1037 of the State, both Bishops and Barons held at Northampton. Where fearing what sentence would passe against him, he (being againe periured) appealed to the Pope. The iudge∣ments 1.1038 of the Barons was, that he was worthy to bee apprehended and imprisoned: But before hee heard their iudgement he went away, omnibus clamantibus & dicentibus, Quo progrederis proditor, all crying after him, and calling him Traitor. Did they ac∣count the Pope the supreame Lord or Iudge, when both by oath they binde all, not to appeale vnto him, and iudged the very appealing to him, to be an act of Treason?

If we looke into the Acts of Parliaments, wherein is expressed the consenting voyce and iudgement of the whole kingdome, it is easie to obserue, and euident to be seene, that in them the Kings of this Realme are vsually called, The Soueraigne Lords; as in the Statute of Merton, an. 20. Hen. 3. an. 3. Edw. 1. an. 1. Edw. 2. and in like sort in the reigne of euery King following.

Can there be a more cleere and certaine demon∣stration, that the Popes Soueraigntie and Mo∣narchy was not heere admitted, when by the whole State the King is with one voyce proclai∣med to be the Supreame Lord? Or can any be Su∣perior to him that is Supreame?

In the reigne of Edw. the first, in the Statute at Carlilet 1.1039, complaint being made, that the ••ishop of Rome vsurping the segniories in Ecclesiasticall dig∣nities and Benefices, bestowing and granting the same to aliens, and to whom he pleased, as if he were the Patrone of them, it was decreed by the whole Parliament, that such oppressions, greeuances, and dammages, should not bee from thenceforth suffered, yea, they plainely affirme, such vsurpation (so they call it) of the Pope, to be the disinherison of the King, Earles, Barons, and others, and to be the destruction of the lawes of this Realme. In the same Kings reigne there arose a very great contention about the Dominion of Scotland, which King Edward claimedu 1.1040 to belong to the Kings of England, as the direct and supreme Lords there∣of; Boniface the eight (who challengedx 1.1041 most ear∣nestly the same kingdome to belong to the Pope, say∣ing; Nulli in dubium veniat, that none should so much as doubt thereof:) writ to the King, willing him toy 1.1042 send his Procurators and Legates to Rome, with a Declaration of his Title, that there hee might receiue iudgement in that cause in the Re∣mane Court. The King resolutely, and constant∣ly refused either to write or send, in forma iu∣dicij, as if hee would receiue any iudgement

of the Pope therein. And calling a very great assembly of his Barons to Lincolne, they with one consent returned this answere to the Pope. Thatf 1.1043 the Kings of England, by the preheminence of their royall dignity, and by the custome cunctis tem∣poribus irrefragabiliter obseruatae, which had beene obserued in all times without any contradiction, nei∣ther haue answered, nor ought to answere for the right in that kingdome, aut alijs suis temporalibus, or for any other of their temporalties, to any ei∣ther Ecclesiasticall or secular Iudge. And this is our vnanimous consent, that our King for any of his temporalties, nullatenus respondeat iudicialiter co∣ram vobis, nec iudicium subeat quoquo modo, shall in no sort answer iudicially vnto you, nor by any meanes vndergoe any iudgement: neither send Proctor or messenger about such matters. And hereof they giue this remarkable reason, because the doing of it did manifestly tend to the disinherison of the State of the kingdome, and to the preiudice of those liberties, customes, and lawes, to the obseruing and defending of which they were bound by oath; Neither doe we, nor will we in any sort permit, sicut nec possumus nec debemus, as indeed we may not that our King shall doe so vnaccustomed, vndue, and preiudiciall Acts. Could they more plaine∣ly, or more constantly deny the Papall, and auer the Regall Soueraigntie in temporall matters?

In the reigne of Edward the third, and expresse Statute was made, That ifg 1.1044 any purchase or pro∣cure any Prouisions from Rome of any Abbies or Pri∣ories, he and his executors shall bee out of the Kings

protection, and that any man may doe with them as with the enemies of the King; and he that offendeth against such Prouisors in body or in goods, shall bee excused against al people, nor shall euer be impeached or greeued for the same. In another Statuteb 1.1045 made the same yeare, both the Statute of Edward the first against Prouisors, was repeated and ratified, and it was further ordained, that the King and o∣ther Lords should rightly present to Benefices, notwithstanding the Popes prouisions. And in case the presentees of the King, or other Patrons bee disturbed by such Prouisors, so that either they may not haue the possession of such benefices, or being in possession, be impeached by such Prouisors, then the said Prouisors, their Procurators, Executors, and Maintainers, to abide in prison till they haue made fine and ransome to the King at his will, and agreed with the party that shall be greeued. And further, that they shall not be deliuered out of prison till they make full renunciation, and finde sufficient suretie not to attempt such things in time to come, nor to sue Proces either by themselues or others, against a∣ny man in the Court of Rome. It was not long af∣ter by another Statutec 1.1046 enacted, That if any of the Kings people, of what condition soeuer they bee, doe draw any out of the Realme for any Plea, the cog∣nisance whereof pertaineth to the Kings Court, or which doe sue in another Court, to defeate or impeach the iudgements giuen in the kings Court, such should personally answer for such their offence within two moneths, and if they came not within that time, they, their Atturneyes, Procurators, Eexcutors, and Main∣teiners

should be put out of the Kings protection, and their Lands, Goods, and Chattels, forfeit to the King. And of such offenders, it is there expresly said, that they did those things in preiudice and disin∣herison of the King, and of his Crowne, and (which I doe specially obserue) to the destruction of the Common Law of the said Realme, at all times vsed. So that neuer from the first erection of the Kingdome, was the Popes Soueraignetie, ac∣knowledged therein, but at all times repugnant to the Lawes thereof, by the consenting voyce, decree, and iudgement of the whole State, the King, the Nobles, and Commons. The very like was againe enactedd 1.1047 in the same Kings reigne, against such as procured Citations from Rome, vpon causes, whose Cognisance and Finall discussion (ob∣serue Finall) pertaineth to the King and his Royall Court▪ or who got Impetrations and prouisions of Benefices or offices in the Church, Deaneries, Arch∣deaconries, or the like, They all, their maintei∣ners, Counsellers, and Abetters, if they be con∣uicted of any of these things, shall haue the pu∣nishment comprised in the Statute of 25. Edw. 3 before mentioned.

In the reigne of Richard the second, it was or∣dainede 1.1048, that for all Archbishoprickes, Bishopricks, and other dignities and Benefices electiue, the Sta∣tute made by Edward the third, should firmely hold. And if any make acceptation of any Benefice contrary to this Statute, and if it be duly prooued, if he bee beyond the sea, he shall abide in exile, and be bani∣shed for euer, and his lands, goods, and tenements,

forfeit to the King. If he be within the Realme, hee shall be exiled and banished, and incur the same for∣feiture. In the same reignef 1.1049 complaint being made of diuers Processes, Excommunications, and Translations made by the Pope to the preiu∣dice of the Crowne, it was ordeined, That if any purchased or pursued, or caused to purchase or pursue any such Translations, Processes, Excōmunications, Buls, or Instruments, or if any receiue them, or make notification of them, both they and their maintainers and abetters, should al be put out of the Kings protecti∣on, and their lands, goods, and chattels forfeit to the King. And if this be not sufficient, these expresse words are set downe in that Statute, worthy to be written in golden letters; The Crowne of Eng∣land hath beene so free at all times (note All times) that it hath beene in subiection to no Realme, but immediatly subiect to GOD, and to none other.

In the reigne of Henrie the fourth, it was ordainedg 1.1050, That if any prouision bee made by the Bishop of Rome, to any person of religion, to bee ex∣empt of obedience regular, or of obedience ordina∣ry, or to haue any office perpetuall within houses of religion, if such Prouisors doe accept, or enioy any such prouision, they shall incurre the punishment comprised in the Statute of Prouisors, made an. 13. Richard the second; and that was perpetuall ba∣nishment, and losse of all their lands and goods. The like punishment was set downeh 1.1051 for those who procured Buls from Rome, to be quit or dischar∣ged to pay the dismes of their lands.

In the reigne of Henry the sixt, the Popel 1.1052 writ letters in derogation of the King and his Regalitie: and whereas the Church-men durst not speake against it, Humphrey Duke of Glocester cast them into the fire. So little did that noble and loyall heart esteeme the Popes authoritie, when it was dero∣gatorie to the royall dignitie. In his reigne also, whenm 1.1053 Richard Duke of Yorke had ouercome Henrie, he claimed the Crown as in right belong∣ing to himselfe, and expressing the royall digni∣tie thereof, said, That he was subiect to no man, but onely to God.

In Edward the fourths time, the Popen 1.1054 sent a Legate to Callis to come into England, who sent to the King to haue safe comming; the King by aduise of his Councell would not suffer him to come within England, vntill he had taken an oath that he should attempt nothing against the King and his Crowne, which oath the Legate tooke, and then came.

That in the reigne of Henrie the eight, this Papall vsurping of Iurisdiction, was vtterly ex∣stirpated, and the Regall Dignitie or Soueraign∣ty of the Crowne declared, none is ignorant. The whole State of the kingdome, both Eccle∣siasticall and Laicall, euen then when for other matters, (as the Masse, Adoration of Images, Purgatorie, and the like, they were as zealous for the Romish doctrine, as at any time before) with one voiceo 1.1055 declared, That this Realme of England is an Empire, as by ancient and authenticke Histories and Chronicles is manifest: that this Empire

is gouerned by one Supreame head and King, hauing the dignitie and royall estate of the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme: That this Realme recogniseth no su∣perior vnder God but the King: That the whole body politicke, both the Spiritualty and Temporalty is bound, and ought to beare a naturall and humble obe∣dience to the King thereof Next vnto God: That the King hath plenarie and intire power, authority, prerogatiue, and iurisdiction, to render Iustice, and finall determination to all his subiects, in all causes and contentions, without either restraint from, or prouocation to any forreine Prince or Potentate in the world: That the Pope by his Exactions, Procurations, Prouisions, Buls, and Appeales, hath vsurped therein, to the derogation of the Imperiall Crowne, and au∣thority royall, contrary both to right and conscience. And that it might bee knowne to all, that these Statutes whereby they abandon the Papall, and manifest the Kings royal Soueraignty in all causes, as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall, that these, I say are no Introductory Statutes, such as giue a new, but onely Declaratorie, such as explaine the anci∣ent authoritie & rights of the King, they adde, that in decreeing these, they did no other thing then former Kings had done for the conseruation of the prerogatiues, liberties, and preheminence of this Imperiall Crowne, and by name, as Edw. 1. Edw. 2. Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. had done.

The same Soueraignty was acknowledged to be in Queene Marie, the whole State declaring p 1.1056 that all Regall power, dignity, authority, and Iu∣risdiction did, and of right ought to appertaine vnto

her, in as full and and ample manner, as it did to any of her Noble Progenitors. By vertue of which Supreame power, whenq 1.1057 Pope Paul the fourth being displeased with Card. Poole, meant to take from him his Legantine authoritie, and giue it to Fryer Peto; for which purpose the Pope chose him Cardinall, and sent him the Cardinals hat, and other ensignes of his new authoritie, as farre as Callice; Queene Marie (for all her deuotion to the Romane faith) by the aduice of her No∣bles and Iudges, in fauour of Card. Poole, sent to Callice, straitly forbidding the Popes Nuncio so much as to set foot within England, though he was sent thither by the Romane Monarch. And though the Pope threatned and stormed thereat, yet Card. Poole quietly enioyed his dignity, but Fryer Peto the Popes Minion, was faine to go vp and downe the streets of London like a begging Fryer, without his Cardinals hat.

Thus from the Conquest to the beginning of Q. Elizabeth (since which time the cleere light of the Gospel hath most happily shined throughout this Realme) the Popes Soueraignty hath beene euer reiected by this most renowned kingdome. And that long before the Conquest the like was done, yea euen since the very first planting of the Gospel in this Iland, there are pregnant euiden∣ces. I do purposely passe by that of S. Edward the Confessor, in whose lawesr 1.1058 the King of Eng∣land is called the Vicare of the highest King, to rule the holy Church, and defend the same. I omit also that of King Edgar, who in a Councell at Win∣chester

speaking of himselfe, saiths 1.1059, Vicarius Chri∣stie eliminaui, I being the Vicar of Christ, haue cast out troups of vngodly Fryers, which were in the Monasteries of my kingdome. Who also vsed that memorable saying to his Clergie, Ego Constan∣tini, vos Petri gladium habetis, I haue Constan∣tines, and you haue S. Peters sword: Let vs ioyne hands together, and swords together, to cast out le∣prous persons out of the Temple. Nor will I insist on the saying of Pope Eleutherius, who in his Epistle to Lucius King of Brittaine, saith thus vn∣to him; that you may reigne with God, ••uius vicari∣us estis in praedicto regno, whose Vicar you are in your kingdome; and againe, Rex quia vicarius summi regis est, the King, because he is the Vicar of the highest King, is appointed to this end, that hee should honour the holy Church, and rule it. And yet I could wish to stay heere a little, to casti∣gate the vanitie, and shamelesse dealing of F. Parsons, who to decline this testimony, would gladly perswadet 1.1060 you, that this is but a fained Epistle, yea euen fainedu 1.1061 by Master Fox. Where∣as beside other Records thereof, the samewhole Epistle is Verbatim set downe in a very auncient Manuscript, written diuers hundreth of yeares before Master Fox was borne, which among o∣thers my selfe haue, and others may see in the most worthy Library of Sir Robert Cotton, that honorable fauourer of learning, and learned An∣tiquities.

The speciall reasons which I will vse to proue the truth thereof, are two. The former is taken

from the Common Law of this Realme. A law so ancientz 1.1062, that no certaine beginning is knowne thereof, (as neither of the Law of Nations:) but it was receiued and grew into vse by the conti∣nued, constant, and vnchanged practise of wise and iudicious men in this Realme, euer since a Common-weale hath beene setled therein: and because it was both by Common experience of all approued, as a most fit rule of Iustice, and also generally or commonly practiseda 1.1063, first in the reigne of the Brittanes, then of the Romanes, then in the seuerall kingdomes of the Heptar∣chy of the Saxons, then of the Danes, and last∣ly of the Normans; it seemes to haue obteined the name of the Common, that is the generally ap∣proued Law of this Realme. That by it the Popes Soueraigntie and Supreame Iurisdiction, was neuer approued in this Realme, in the bookes of Law are set downe many authorities. In Henrie the seuenths timeb 1.1064, The Pope excommunicated all such persons as bought Allume of the Florentines. It was adiudged that the Popes excommunication ought not to bee allowed. In Richard the thirds time, it was holdenc 1.1065, that a iudgement in the Court of Rome, should not preiudice any man at the Common Law. The like was held in Edward the fourths time, that the Popesd 1.1066 excommunication was not to be allowed in the kings Court. In Henry the fourths time, it was ruled fore 1.1067 Law, that it is no plea for the defendant to say, that the plaintiffe is excommunicated by the Pope, although he shew forth the Popes Bull to witnesse it; For the Iudges ought

not to allow such an excommunication: and that the Certificate of no excommunication is auaileable in Law, but such as is made by some Bishop in Eng∣land. In Edw. 1. timef 1.1068, one brought an excommu∣nication against another from the Pope: The kings pleasure was, that according to the law he should be hanged and drawne, as a Traytor, but the Chancel∣lour and Treasurer kneeled for him before the king; so hee had iudgement onely to abiure the realme. Many the like authorities are set downe in the bookeg 1.1069 of the right Honourable S^r. Edward Coke, whose exact knowledge in that profession is not vnknowne to any. But these few, (which by the helpe of those who are very learned in that profession, I was desirous to exa∣mine for my owne satisfaction) are sufficient to testifie the Popes authoritie, euen his Censures of excommunication, not to haue beene of force in this Realme by the Common Law thereof.

And I was much more earnest and glad to be satisfied herein, because with such as are not ey∣ther themselues expert, or seeke not, as I professe I haue done, to bee informed by them who are learned in the Law; the collusions of F. Parsons, who would seeme to make some answerh 1.1070 to that Treatise, may perhaps cast a mist before their eyes, whereas if the truth be duly and fully scan∣ned, the Iesuite by that his answere, hath mar∣uelously both disgraced himselfe, and bewrayed the weaknesse of that cause of the Popes Suprema∣cie, which he vndertook to defend; but he could no otherwise support it, but by flying to Imper∣tinent,

Sophistical, and Reuiling euasions, on which his whole dispute doth consist.

Of the Impertinency of his dispute, take this demonstration. We in all our writings do pro∣fesse and make euident, that by the Soueraigne au∣thority which we giue vnto kings in causes Eccle∣siasticall, we intend not any either Supreame or subordinate power to preach, to administer Sa∣craments, to ordeine, to suspend, excommuni∣cate, and absolue, or iudicially to decide and define doubts of faith: This power is giuen to no Laicall, but onely to Ecclesiasticall persons; and giuen or deriued to them onely from Christ, by the mediation of his Apostles and Bishops. And because in all these there is a direction in the waies of God, but no corporall force or punish∣ment, coacting men to walke in those waies, therefore is this rightly called a Directiue power, or a power of executing those Spirituall duties. But the power which wee acknowledge to be∣long to Kinges in causes Ecclesiasticall, is an Imperiall, not Spirituall; a Supreame coactiue, not a directiue power; a power Mandatorie, comman∣ding those Ecclesiasticall duties to be done, not Executory, as doing those themselues: Such a power, as by which all Kings and Princes are au∣thorized by God, as being his immediate Vice∣gerents vpon earth, not onely to permit with li∣bertie and freedome, but to see all those spirituall duties performed in their kingdomes by Ecclesiasti∣call persons, yea, to coact and compell both them to performe, and others to embrace the same du∣ties

of pietie and religion. This being the do∣ctrine which we euery where proclaime, F. Par∣sons not being able with any colour to oppugne this truth, that he might seeme to say somewhat in the Popes behalfe, and against vs, slily declines the maine point touching the Supreame Coactiue power, and as if we gaue vnto Princes the Dire∣ctiue power in causes Ecclesiasticall (which wee neuer so much as once dreame of) he labours to proue against vs, that Princes haue not that Ecclesi∣asticall poweri 1.1071, not such powerk 1.1072 as Popes, Arch-bishops and Bishops haue: That it is absurdl 1.1073 (which he saith we teach) that all Spirituall power is ori∣ginally in a King; yea in a child, yea in a woman, and from them must be deriued to others: That it is likewisem 1.1074 absurd (which he perswades you, that we teach) that a King, a child, yea a woman hath power not onely to giue this Ecclesiasticall Iurisdicti∣on vnto others, but much more to vse and exercise the same in their owne persons; as namely, to giue ho∣ly orders, to create and consecrate Bishops, absolue sinnes, administer Sacraments, teach, preach, iudge, and determine in points of faith. Thus disputes the great Iesuite against vs. In all which euery one may see that this grand Master in their Romish schoole, doth not so much as once touch the point which he vndertooke, but fighteth onely with his owne shaddow; and when he hath refu∣ted this idle and sottish conceit of his owne de∣uising, then he insultes, and triumphs as if he had killed the wise and worthy Vlisses, whereas in ve∣ry deed the blind Polyphemus hath done nothing

else but hackt and hewed in peeces one of his owne hogges.

As his dispute is Impertinent, so is it in euery part Sophisticall. I will instance onely in this whereof we now entreat touching the reiecting of the Popes Excommunications. He seeing that they were often and expresly by the Law re∣iected, deuiseth this shift, (and it is very fre∣quentn 1.1075 and vsuall in him) that the reiecting of them proceeded not from any want of respect to the Pope, nor from the denial of his authoritie in this kingdom, but from want of a Certificate frō the Arch-bishop or Bishop, that those writings were in∣deed the Popes Bulls, and not counterfeit. Where∣in besides his supine ignorance, hee bewrayes a resolute intent rather to cauil and wrangle, then to dispute and argue. It is true, that in the books of the Law there is often mention of hauing a Certificate from the Bishop. But that Certificate was not to testifie that this was truly and certainely the Popes Bull or Excommunication, (for how could any Bishop here, be able to certifie that?) but to certifie that the partie (whom that ex∣communication did concerne) was by the Arch-bishop or Bishop himselfe excommunicated. Which to be the true meaning of those words, there are many cleere proofes. By the Statute an. 27. of Edw. 3. cap. 1. it is expresly declared, that the very suing to the Court of Rome, and seek∣ing by such courses to hinder or impeach iudgement in the Kings Court, was the very destruction of the Common Law, vsed at all times in this Realme. So

by the consenting voyce of the whole State, ex∣plaining and confirming the Common Law, the very Act of procuring the Popes Excommunication, (and not the want of a Certificate of the truth thereof) is declared to be an Act contrary to the Common Law, and therefore to bee condemned and reiected by that Law; and that also at al times. Had the want of a Certificate from the Bishop, bene once knowne to auoid the force of the Popes Bull of Excommunication, would any, thinke you, after that, haue beene so simple or carelesse in their owne causes, as not to haue brought al∣waies with the Popes Bull, a Certificate thereof from a Bishop? Would Edward the first haue beene so rigorous, nay tyrannicall, as to con∣demne one for Treason, and will that he should be hanged and drawne, or but to be abiured the land, for omitting a part of the forme in legall procee∣ding? for want of a Bishops Certificate of the Popes Bull? Did euer the Statute or Common Law iudge such an omission to be so heynous, and e∣uen a Capitall offence against the Crowne? Long before this, the ancient Lawes of the Land were re∣cognised and confirmed by all the States of the king∣dome, and that also by oath in the reigne of Henrie the second, as both Math. Paris. whom before I cited, and an Act of Parliamento 1.1076 vnder the same Henry the second, witnesseth. It was then decla∣red to bee an Act vnlawfull and preiudiciall to the King, for any to Appeale to the Pope in any cause, without the Kings consent. Whence it is cleere, that the very suing for the Popes Excom∣munication,

and not want of a Certificate was the offence in Law taken at those writs. Nay the Certificate, that such a writ was truly procured from the Pope, had beene an assurance of the of∣fence, not an help to the offender. Besides, in the 14. of Henrie the fourth, fol. 14. it is said, that the Certificate of no excommunication is auaileable in Law, but only of such excommunications as are made by the Arch-bishop or Bishop. And therefore though the Popes Excommunication had beene by all the Bishops in the Realme certified, yet in law it was not auaileable, because it was the Popes Excommunication, and not the Bishops. Nay it is further there said (which is a cleere demonstrati∣on of this truth) that though an Excōmunicati∣on was certified by the Archbishop of Canterburie, vnder his seale, yet for that the same Excommuni∣cation was but in execution of a Sentence in the Court of Rome, and was not vpon any cause originally depending before the Archbishop, it was ruled, that the said Excommunication should not be allowed. How much more then was the Popes owne Ex∣communication (though certified by a Bishop) by the Law reiected, when euen those Excom∣munications made and certified by Bishops, which of themselues were of force, lost their al∣lowance in law, when they had reference and de∣pendance to the Pope, and at his solliciting of the Bishops, were made against any for executi∣on of a sentence in his Court? Lastly, the reasons why those Excommunications of the Pope are in law reiected, doe vndeniably conuince this.

One reason hereof was, becauseo 1.1077 it was against the Kings regalitie and Crowne. To want a Certifi∣cate that the Bull was truly the Popes Bull, none can imagine to be preiudiciall to the King, or to his royaltie: at the most that is but an error and ouersight in the partie that pleadeth, it is no de∣rogation to the kings right. But to bring an excom∣munication from the Pope, as from a superior Iudge then the King; to bring the Popes authoritie and writ, to hinder the proceeding of Iustice in the Kings Court, & to ouermaster the Kings autho∣ritie, this indeed directly, and in Capite touch∣eth the Crowne and the Kings royaltie; for in ef∣fect it is a very deniall of the Kings Soueraignty, a deniall that he is in truth a King. Another reason which is often set downe in the bookes of Lawp 1.1078, is this, because the Pope is not a Minister or Officer to the Kings Court. Whereby is meant, that such Excommunications as are of force in Law, must be made by those who are ministers, and subiect to the King. And the reason hereof is euident: because if the Excommunication be vniust, the Court in the Kings name may command, and the King may compell them to redresse the same. Now to the Pope, neither could the Iudges (as they say) write, (to wit, authoritatiue to com∣maund him) nor could the King compell him to reuoke or redresse his Excommunication, though it were neuer so vniust. By all which it is euident, that the Popes excommunications were by the Common Law, and that at all times reie∣cted, eo nomine, because they were the Popes, and

so were derogatorie to the royall dignitie; not as the Iesuite cauilleth, because they wanted the Bishops Certificate to testifie the truth of them: for which his fancie as those who are very learned in that profession, assure me, he hath no ground at all in the bookes of the Law. But F. Parsons thought by his equiuocating, and cauilling a∣bout the Bishops Certificate (whereof he knew there was mention in the bookes of Law) to de∣lude the simple and vnskilfull Reader, who ei∣ther cannot, or will not regard to enforme them∣selues in such matters. But howsoeuer among his owne ignorant proselites he may gaine an ap∣plause, yet by his so vile and malicious sophisti∣cating with the Law, among all men of sound learning and vpright iudgement, hee hath made himselfe a very Ludibrium vnto them.

Parsons fearing his Sophistry would faile him, as it hath in this, turnes him to his other shift, which is indeed his last refuge, and that is open Railing and Reuiling: an Art wherein of all that e∣uer I haue read, he is most skilfull and expert, a∣ble to put Shemie, Rabshe••ah, and Thersites him∣selfe to the schoole. I will not Camerinam moue∣re, not offend your eares with stirring that sinke: Doe but heare how contumeliously, how spite∣fully he derideth and declameth against the very Lawes of that land, which bred and brought vp such an vnnaturall Viper. What is that Common Law? saith hep 1.1079, that ancient Common Law? How was it made? By whom? Where? at what time? vp∣on what occasion? To auouch a Common Law, an an∣tient

Common Law, without beginning, authour, cause, occasion, or record of Introduction, is a strange Metaphysicall contemplation. This Commonq 1.1080 Law, it is E••s transcendens, or rather Ens Rationis, nay it is a very Chymera, (anr 1.1081 old Chymera, an Imaginary Law) such as hath no essence or being at all a parte Rei, but onely in imagination. And in this com∣mon place, as in a large field hee exspatiates al∣most throughout his whole booke, and in deri∣ding the Law, makes himselfe most ridiculous. I cannot more fitly answere him, then with the words of S. Hierom, Imperitia confidentiam, sci∣entia timorem creat. Modesty and humility at∣tend vpon knowledge, pride and confidence are the companions of Ignorance: or with that of the Poet, Omnia quae nescit dicit spernenda colonus. The dignitie and honour of this Law (vnder which this renowned kingdome doth now most happily, and hath for more then 16. hundreth yeares, continued in a flourishing estate:) is by so many most worthy men, and learned in that profession, so amply set forth, that as it needs no Apologie at all, specially not of me, so meane and vnworthy an Encomiast; so can it no whit at all be blemished by the contu••elies of him who doth but reprehend, what he doth not compre∣hend. Thus much onely let me say, that all his scoffing and opprobrious demaunds do equally, and with as much force fight against the Law of Nations: yea, for the most part against the Law of Nature also. What is this Law of Nations? How was it made? By whom? Where? at what

time? Vpon what occasion? Seeing notwith∣standing all these friuolous demands, the Law of Nations is acknowledged by all learned men, yea euen by Parsonss 1.1082 himselfe, (who is to be ranked in another predicament) to haue a true realitie, let him either professe the like Realitie and essence in the Common Law, or with it let him con∣demne the other, as a Chymericall imagination; and so at once bid battell, not onely to this one kingdome, but euen to all mankind, and all Na∣tions. Now his booke consisting of these and such like Impertinent, Sophisticall, and Reuiling dis∣courses, what other answer could he expect, or should he receiue from him whom according to the Prouerb, Dares Entellum, he made his (though a most vnequall) Antagonist in this cause, but that which he hath returnedt 1.1083 against him, a Writ of Nihil dicit, for in very deed, he speakes Nihil ad Rhombum. But to passe from him, seeing it is now cleere, that by the Common Law, the Popes supreame authoritie euen in Ecclesiasticall, and then much more in Temporall causes, of which wee intreat, is reiected; and seeing that Law is the selfe-same now that it was alwaies, it being a certaine, immutable and inflexible rule; it remaines as cleere and certaine, that not onely since the Conquest, but euer since there was a Common Law in this Realm (that was euer since there was a Common-weale therein;) which knew the Pope, the Popes Soueraigntie hath bin by the Church of this Realme, and that euen by the law of the land reiected.

The other reason to proue this, is drawne from the Brittanes & their Church. That their Church was not subiect to the Popes Iurisdiction, no not in Ecclesiasticall (much lesse in Temporall) cau∣ses, thea 1.1084 manner of their baptising, and others Cere∣monies far different from the Romane, & that euen when Austen the Monke came hither, being sent from Pope Gregorie the Great; and especially their different obseruing of Easter, is a certaine and vndoubted euidence. For seeing the Popes, spe∣cially Victor, as Eusebiusb 1.1085 shewes, were so earnest to draw the Asiaticall Churches to the Romane custome in the obseruation of that day, none may thinke but that they would prouide to haue con∣formitie in such Churches as were subiect to their owne Iurisdiction. Besides this difference of Rites, the Brittane Bishops manifestly declared that they held not their Church nor themselues to be subiect to the Pope, nor to his authority. Pope Gregory appointed Austen to be their Arch∣bishop. Wec 1.1086 commit vnto you omnes Britaniarum Episcopos, all the Bishops of Brittaine, that the weake may be confirmed, and the obstinate corrected. The Brittaine Bishops knew that Pope Gregorie had giuen to Austen this authoritie ouer them, as by Beded 1.1087 and others is euident, seeing Austen la∣bourede 1.1088 to bring them to his obedience Apostolica au∣thoritate, by the Popes authoritie. Had those Catholike Bishops knowne and beleeued either the Pope to bee a Supreme Iudge and Commander in the whole Church in causes Ecclesiasticall, or themselues to be subiect to his command and

authority in such causes, they would no doubt haue yeelded obedience to Austen, and in him to the Pope. See now how farre they were from do∣ing or acknowledging this. Austen vsed both praiers & threatse 1.1089 to moue them to consent, and to conforme themselues to the Romane Church, though not in other things, yet at least forf 1.1090 their manner of baptising and celebrating Easter. Neque precibus, neque increpationibus Augustini assensun•• praebere voluerunt, they would neither yeeld to his entreating, nor increpation, but told him plain∣ly, they would obserue their owne Traditions. When he the second time required of them mihi obtem∣perareg 1.1091, to be obedient to him in those motions, their answer was, nihil se horum facturos, that they would yeeld to none of them all: and they further added, Illum pro Archiepiscopo se non ha∣bituros, that they would not accept of him for an Archbishop ouer them: Yeah 1.1092 Dinoth the Ab∣bot of Bangor, a man of great learning, made it ap∣peare by diuers arguments, when Austen required the Bishops to be subiect vnto him, that they ought him no subiection. They further added, as somei 1.1093 set downe, That they had an Arch-bishop of their owne, residing at Caerlegion, or Legancestria (that is Chester whither it seemes the Metropolitan See, which while the Brittaine Monarchy continued, was at Yorke, was now remoued:) Him they ought and would obey, externo vero Episcopo minime sub∣iectos sore, but they would not be subiect to any forren Bishop, and then not to the Pope, much lesse to Austen.

This example of the Brittanes is so ancient, and withal so pregnant against the Popes supremacy, and that euen in Ecclesiasticall causes, that Baro∣niusk 1.1094 being no other waies able to auoide the force thereof, slanders those Bishops with the im∣putation of schisme, because they would not yeeld obedience to the Pope. Wherin Baronius shame∣fully begs the maine question in that his dispute. Neither could he, nor will others euer proue, either that all Churches, or that this of Brittaine in particular, did owe subiection to the Romane B. The Church of Brittainel 1.1095 in ancient time, like other Prouinces, had a Patriarch, or Patriarchall Primate of her owne: to him the other Bishops in this Church were subiect, as they in Aegipt to the Patriarke of Alexandria, diuers in the Easterne parts of Asia, to the Patriarke of Antioch; they in Italy to the Patriarke of Rome, and so in other Prouinces. Among these Patriarkes, and Patri∣archall Primates, by reason of the Imperiall seat, and other seats of Iustice in seuerall Prouinces, there was a Primacy, or Precedency of one before another, but no authority of one aboue another, no subordination or subiectiō of one vnto another. Admit those Bishops had then separated them∣selues frō the Pope, (which yet doth not appear:) it is not the separation from the Pope, or from a∣ny Bishop, no nor from any Church, but onely the cause of separation that makes a schismaticke: And seeing the Pope then sought to oppresse the ancient liberties of the Brittaine Church, and to bring them vnder his yoake to whom they were not subiect; the Cause of their separation from the

Pope being iust, could not make them Schisma∣ticall; but if the Pope and his adherents did for this cause forsake or refuse communion with them, or separate themselues from them, hee and his adherents must rightly and truely bee herein accounted Schismatikes. Of which point, be∣cause in another Treatise: I haue at large euen against Boronius entreated: I will adde no more in this place.

F. Parsons is more cholerike against the Brit∣tans then Baronius, and therefore imputes an higher fault, euen the crime of Heresie vnto them; and because they would not obey Austens perswasions to obserue Easter, as the Roman Church did, he makes them guilty of the Heresie of the Quartadecimanes. To w^ch purpose he faith:l 1.1096 The Brittons obserued a Iewish Ceremony against the order and faith of the Church of Rome. And hee accounteth this a substantiall point of faith, say∣ing,m 1.1097 for other substantiall points of faith (this then is one) they agreed with Augustine. And again,n 1.1098 Au∣sten at his comming, found no other substantiall diffe∣rence of beliefe, in the Brittish faith from that which he brought from Rome. And yet more plainly.o 1.1099 The Easterne custome of celebrating Easter, vsed by the Brittans, hath beene co••demned, not onely for an er∣rour, but also for an Heresie. Wherin the Iesuit be∣wrayes a great deale both of ignorance and ma∣lice. For the Heresie of the Quartadecimanes, did not consist in the bare obseruing of Easter, on the 14. day of the Moone of March, seeing not on∣ly the Churches of Brittaine but diuers also in

Asia, as Eusebius testifieth,p 1.1100 obserued that same day, who were not held Hereticall in this point, no not by the Romane Bishops, whoq 1.1101 retained commuinion with them. But the Essence and for∣mality of that Heresie, was their teaching that Easter ought of Necessity to bee kept on that day and none other: which Necessity they grounded vpon the Mosaicall Law, wherein that day is pre∣cisely commanded, from which law they thought and taught others, that none might depart, and so by their doctrine they couertly and closely la∣boured to reduce Iudaisme, and all the Iudaicall rites, one of which was this of Easter; and for which, hauing most colourable pretences, they vsed it but as a pully to drawe on the rest. Ter∣tullian sheweth this fully, who speaking of Blastus the Author of that Heresie, saith:r 1.1102 Latenter Iu∣daismum introducere voluit dicens, Pasca non aliter ••nstodiendum esse nisi secundum legem Mosis 14. luna mensis. Hee indeuored cunningly to bring Iudaisme into the Church, teaching that Easter was on no other day to be kept, but on the 14. as Moses commanded. With this Heresie (which quite abolisheth Christ, & euacuateth the whole Gospell) those famous Churches in Asia, and this of Brittaine had no affinity. For although they celebrated the same day that the Iewes did, and the Quartadecimanes vrged, yet they kept it neither after the manner, nor vpon that ground that the Iewes and Heretikes did. The Iewes and Heretikes obserued that day eo nomine, because Moses in his Ceremoniall Law, prescribed it. The

Churches in Asia and Brittaine obserued it as a tradition from Saint Iohn the Euangelist, and by the example of S^t. Iohn, & all the Churches sub∣iect to him, as Policrates in Eusebiuss 1.1103, and long after him B. Coleman expresly declared in that dis∣putation which Bedet 1.1104 sets downe: and S^t Iohn to haue obserued that day, B. Wilfridu 1.1105 who was ear∣nest for the custome of the Roman Church ex∣presly confesseth. The Iewes and Quartadecimans taught that it ought necessarily to bee obserued on that 14. day, and on no other; the Brittane & Asiaticall Churches, vsed it as a rite Indifferent, which might either on that 14. or another day, according to different custome of Churches be celebrated: For which cause they did not re∣nounce Communion, nor breake the vnity of the Church, with such as obserued another day, as by that famous example of Policarpx 1.1106 and Anicetus is most euident. And though the Nicene coun∣cell decreedy 1.1107 that Easter should not bee kept on the foureteenth day after the manner of the Iewes, but one another, to which order of the holy generall Counsell euery particular Church was in duety to haue conformed it selfe, yet because that Decree of the Councell, was not a Decree of faith (no further then it con∣demned the Necessity of obseruing the foure∣teenth day, and so condemned the Quar∣tade••••manes) but a Decree of Order, of Disci∣pline and Vniformity in the Church, when it was once knowne and euident that any particu∣lar Church condemned the Necessity of

that 14. day, the Church by a Conniuence permitted, and did not censure the bare obser∣uing of that day, so long as it was obserued, but as an indifferent and mutable rite, nor as a Mosai∣call, but as an Apostolicall tradition or custome: euen as in that other Nicene Canonx 1.1108, that on eue∣rie Lords day from Easter to Whitsontide, none should pray kneeling, but standing, the Church both now and euer, vsed the like Conniuence, or Indulgence. So long as there is a consent, vnity, and agreement in the Doctrines of Faith, the Church neuer vseth to be rigorous with particu∣lar Churches, which are her owne Children for the variety and difference in ourward Rites, though commanded by her selfe. Euery parti∣cular Church like the Kings daughter, must haue the same glory of faith within, though they haue diuersitie of rites, like variety of colours in their garments without. And this to haue bene the ve∣ry iudgment of the church touching the Brittaine Church and Bishops, her selfe declared: seeing not long after that Nicene decree, both at the Generall and holy holy Councell of Sardica, and after that, in another at Ariminum, (which Baroni∣us and Biniusy 1.1109 professe to haue beene also a ge∣nerall and holy Councell) and at which were present about foure hundred Catholike Bishops, they as willingly and gladly receiued the Bishops of Brittainez 1.1110 (though obseruers of the foureteenth day) as any of other Prouinces, who obserued another. Doubtlesse had the Church esteemed either the bare obseruing of that foureteenth day, to

make an-hereticke, or the Church and Bishops of Brittaine, for obseruing that day to be hereticall, Hosius, Athanasius, and other, most holy and or∣thodoxall Bishops would neuer haue admitted them vnto, or permitted them to sit and giue sentence with them in those holy assemblies. It was some Ignorance, but much more Malice in Parsons, to account those Brittanes who would not yeeld obedience to Austen, Heretickes, and taxe them as obseruing that rite against the Faith, yea against a Substantiall point of Faith, whereas it is cleere that they were at that time as Aman∣dus Xierixensisa 1.1111 expresly and truly cals them, Ca∣tholikes; euery way, if not more, as Catholike as Austen himselfe.

It doth now appeare, that the Popes supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, was not be∣leeued nor receiued, but directly oppugned and reiected in this Realme, at that time when Au∣sten came, seeing the Catholike Brittanes, Brit∣tish Bishops, and Church refused Austen for their Arch-bishop, and in that reiected the Popes au∣thoritie, by which they knew he was appointed to be their Arch-bishop. But there are besides this, some other important consequents. First Father Parsons tels vsb 1.1112, that in all substantiall points of faith, excepting that Ceremonie (so him∣selfe expreslyc 1.1113 cals it) of obseruing Easter, the Religion of the Brittanes did wholy agree with that of the Romanes at that time, which was the time of Gregorie the Great. Now seeing it is cleere that the doctrine of the Popes Supremacie in causes

Ecclesiasticall, was no point of the Brittanes faith, but a doctrine which both by their professi∣on and practise they did vtterly condemne and reiect: it hence followeth, that the same doctrine was condemned by Pope Gregorie, and all Ca∣tholikes at that time. Againe, Parsons tels vsc 1.1114, That the faith which the Brittaines formerly had in the time of Eleutherius, and before that also in the Apostles time, was the selfe-same in all materiall and substantiall points (excepting that Ceremo∣nie of Easter) which they had when Austen came▪ in all that time neither did the Church of Rome change her faith, nor the Brittaines theirs. And Galfr. Monumetensis leauing out that ridiculous exception of Parsons, testifiethd 1.1115, (as Parsons al∣so confessethe 1.1116 of him) that the same doctrine of Christianitie which was receiued in the time of Eleu∣therius, failed not among the Brittaines, but remai∣ned in force when Austen came. Whence it againe and certainly followeth, that seeing the doctrine of the Popes supreme authoritie in causes Ec∣clesiasticall, was no part of the faith of the Brit∣taines when Austen came; therefore neither was it any part of their faith in Eleutherius daies, no nor in the Apostles neither: nay seeing the faith of the Brittaines (as Parsons truly affirmethf 1.1117) was then the same which the Romane Church, and all Catholikes embraced, it further followeth, that the Popes Supremacie, was no part of the faith of the Church of Rome, or of any Catholikes either in Eleutherius, or in the Apostles time. So is it cleerely prooued, and that with a large ouer∣plus,

that as the Supreme authority of the Pope in causes Ecclesiasticall, (and a fortiori in Tem∣porall) was reiected by this Realme euer since the Conquest, so was it also during the whole time of the Saxons and Brittaines, euer since there was a Church planted therein, and that is euer since the daies of the Apostles, in whose time, by the confession of all learned men, there was a Church in Brittaine.

To this Demonstration, and euident Dedu∣ction of the truth, let me adde somewhat touch∣ing those three pretences which they alledge, & wherby they striue to proue the Popes▪ Soueraign∣tie and Monarchicall authority in this kingdom. The first, as you haue seeneg 1.1118, is the payment of Peter-pence, begun by King Ina, about the yeare 716. and confirmed by Offa, Adelphus, Willi∣am the Conquerour, and others, till the time of Henrie the eight: which payment, because Poly∣doreh 1.1119 cals a Tribute, they thence inferre, that the Kingdome of England was Tributary to the Pope, and he the direct or Supreme Lord thereof. But what a slender witnesse is Polydore for so weighty a matter? An Italian, one of the Popes Pentio∣ners, Collectors, and flatterers also: such an one as Card. Bellarmine himselfe misdoubts in this very matter, sayingi 1.1120; England is tributarie to the Pope, si Polidoro Virgilio credimus. If we will be∣leeue Polydore. And sure the Cardinall had rea∣son to doubt that Polydore meant not any such thing as they collect: for he expresly saithk 1.1121, that those Peter-pence were paid to the Pope, pietatis et re∣ligionis

causa, for pietie and deuotion. So by Po∣lydores testimonie, that was a tribute of Deuoti∣on, not of Dutie, a tribute giuen for Pietie, or gi∣uen in Pios vsus, not a payment of subiection, or seruice. But what speake I of Polydore? That those Peter pence were indeed nothing else but a volun∣tarie Almes giuen to the Church of Rome, part∣ly for the vse of some English Church there ere∣cted, partly for the releefe of English Pilgrims and Trauellers who came thither, either vpon deuotion or otherwise, there are such authentick Records witnessing the same, that the poore and petite testimony of Polydore, (on which, but with extreame diffidence, they build that their idle fancie) is not to be named, much lesse compa∣red with them. In that old Manuscript collecti∣on of Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, of which before I spake: among other Records there is set downe a Writ or Instrumentk 1.1122 which M^r. Sin∣tius Clerke of the Popes Exchequer, and the Popes Nuncio in England brought to the Ro∣mane Court, concerning these Peter pence. In it is expressed, both how those pence ought to be col∣lected, at what time, and where to bee payed, what forfeiture for not payment thereof, and which I principally obserue the very reason why the King payed them to Rome, which is this, Quoniam denarius hic Elemosyna Regis est, because those Peterpence are the Almes of the King. Among the Lawes of S. Edward the Confessor, which are extant in another ancient Manuscriptl 1.1123, the very same touching all those particulars, are ex∣presly

and verbatim set downe, as in the Instru∣ment of Sintius, the same reason of payment is there also expressed, Quoniam Denarius hic Elemo∣syna Regis est. William Conqueror, to the endm 1.1124 he might bee vndoubtedly certified of the true Lawes, which were formerly vsed by the Saxons in this Realme, caused a collection of them to be made by the consent of sworne men, 12 to be chosen out of euery Shire of England. They all (witnesses for number, antiquitie, and credit a∣boue all exception) among other ancient Lawes and Customes, mention this concerning Rome∣scot or Peter-pence, in the very same manner and words as the former did; and this very reason, for the payment thereof by them is expressed, Quoniam Denarius hic Elemosyna Regis est. By all which it is euident, that by those Peter pence, the Pope and Church of Rome is certainely proued, to be Elemosynarius a Beeds-man to the Kings & kingdome of England, as receiuing that Annual Almes from them, to the payment whereof they voluntarie bound themselues. And from this vo∣luntarie guift of an Almes, to conclude that the Pope is the highest Lord of England, is euen such a reason, as if a begger from the guift of a penny, or an Hospitall from the guift of twentie shillings, which you promise or binde your selfe yearely to pay, should conclude that they are certainly your Landlord, and that you hold all your lands and possessions of them, and in token of recognition thereof, do pay yearely to the one a penny, or to the other a pound.

Their next pretence, and that wherein they do most confidently & continually triumph, is that famous, nay infamous, and as Math. Parisa 1.1125, and Math. West.b 1.1126, rightly call it that lamentable execrable, and detestable Charter, made by King Iohn, by which he resigned for the Popes vse, into the hands of his Legate, the Realmes of England and Ireland, and as Feudatarie, tooke them of the Pope againe, for the annuall rent of 1000. Markes. For answere whereunto, I wish them first to con∣sider what they will say to Sir Thomas Moore, an holy Martyrc 1.1127 among thē, who denyethd 1.1128 the Fact and that any such Deed was at all made by King Iohn. For my owne part, I doe not consent to their Martyr in this point. For besides that the Copy of the Charter made to Pandulph the Popes Legate, is set downe in Math. Parisiensisc 1.1129, and Math. Westmonasteriensisf 1.1130, who liued neere those times, there is extant a Bull of Innocentius. 3. which (reciting Verbatim, euery word in Iohns Charter to Pandulf,) the Pope sent vnto K. Iohn: declaring how willingly and ioyfully hee accep∣ted the Kingdomes so resigned, and let them vn∣to King Iohn againe. The very autographum of that papall Bull, dated on the 4. of Nouember, Anno 1213. signed with the Popes owne hand and marke, witnessed by the subscriptions and markes of 12. Cardinals and 3. Bishops, sealed also with the Popes seale of lead, imprinted on the one side with the name of Innocentius 3. and on the o∣ther, with the Images of Peter and Paul, after I had seeneg 1.1131 and perused, it left no scruple at all

touching the fact in my mind. Besides this Char∣ter made to Pandulph at Douer, on the 15. day of May, an 14. Iohannis; the Pope afterwards solici∣ted and induced King Iohn, by Nicholas▪ Bishop of Tusculum, the Popes Legate, to renewg 1.1132 the same grant of resignation; and so Iohn did. This se∣cond Charter was made for the Popes vse to Nicholas the Legate, at London, in the Church of S^t. Paul, dated on the 3. of October, an. 15. of King Iohn, and Anno Domini 1213. sealedh 1.1133 with gold, whereas the former was but with waxe. The Copy of which Grant being wholly set downe in that Manuscript Collection of Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, of which before I spake, after I had also seenei 1.1134, perused, and compared with the former, it did fully satisfie me for the Fact a∣gaine. And though it be not easie to coniecture what the Popes pollicy might bee in procuring this second resignation, seeing for euery Materi∣all and substantiall point, it doth Verbatim agree with the former; yet thus much I thinke may bee easily obserued, that both these may well bee in∣ualide, but that they both should be of force it is impossible: the validity of either one, makes the other vtterly inualid. For if the former was of force, then Iohn hauing passed away all his right to the Kingdome by it, hee could haue nothing to passe by the later to the Pope; and then the later is vtterly void and of no force at all: Againe, if the later be of force, so that by it Iohn granted or resigned the Kingdome to the Pope, then was nothing at all past away, granted, or

resigned by the former, and then the former is vt∣terly inualide. And of the two, though they e∣steeme more of the gold, yet if I might aduise thē, they should hold them to the waxe: specially for that the golden Charter (as Parisiensisk 1.1135 tels them was said by many to haue beene melted in that fire at Lyons, which Innocentius the 3. himselfe, was thought to haue kindled in his own Palace, that vnder pretence of that losse, he might more colourably exact a Collection of the Clergie: the fire preuailing fur∣ther then the Pope intended, deuoured that golden Iewell, and some other of lesser value.

But on whether soeuer they set their rest, it is certainely no better then a staffe of Reed, to sup∣port the pretended Dominion of the Pope. For though we suppose it to haue beene sometimes of force, yet the saying of Polidore their owne witnesse, and the Popes Fauourer is very true in this case. Omnial 1.1136 illa onera Iohanni tantummodo imposita sunt, non item successoribus; Those bands tyed, and those burdens were laid vpon King Iohn alone, they bound not any of his successors; and this, saith he, Satis constat, is very cleere and certaine. For as Accursius, Albericus, and other Lawyers teachm 1.1137 of the Donation of Constantine, that it could not preiudice his successors, the ve∣ry same may bee said of the Donation of King Iohn: as the Charters, so the validity of them is not vnlike. Yea, by the iudgement of Lucias de Penna, the grant or Alienation of a Kingdome though confirmed by oath also, as wasn 1.1138 this, could not be of force, no not against King Iohn

himselfe. For though an Emperour, saith heeo 1.1139, sweare that he will not reuoke such royalties as are giuen away to the preiudice of his Crowne, yet he may reuoke them notwithstanding that his oath. And the reason is, because the Emperour at the time of his Coronation, hauing sworne to keepe safe the honour & rights belonging to his Empire, his second & con∣trary Oath (whereby hee sweares to alienate the rights of his Empire, or suffer them to be aliena∣ted or withheld) being vnlawfull, neither doth it, nor can it binde him to violate his former, iust and lawfull Oath; for Iuramentum is not Vincu∣lum Iniquitatis. And this directly concernes the very case of King Iohn. Nay, what if the Pope himselfe adnulled this grant of King Iohn. Both the Charters were made in that one yeere. 1213. as by their date appeares. Of the next yeere thus writeth the Author of the Eulogium;p 1.1140 Anno 1214. conuocatum est, This yeere there was a Parlia∣ment called at London, the Arch-bishop and all the Clergie, cum tota laicali secta with all the Laikes, being present therein. Per domini papae praeceptum illa obligatio praefata, quam Rex domino papaefecerat cum fidelitate & ••omagio relaxatur omnino 1 die Iulii. In this Parliament, that obligation spoken of before, which the King had made to the Pope, with feolty and homage done vnto him, was wholly released by the Commandement of the Lord Pope on the first day of Iuly. Thus the Eu∣logium, euidently witnessing what force or vali∣dity soeuer, was in either of the Charters granted by King Iohn, the same by the Popes owne Act

of Relaxatiō, was the next yeere wholy adnulled.

And all this I haue spoken, vpon supposall that those Charters, or either of them, made by Iohn, had sometimes bin of force. But the truth is, that neither of thē was euer of any force to transfer or giue away the Kingdome; but ab initio, euen from the very first making of them, there was an inua∣lidity and a meere Nullity in those grants, both in respect of the Giuer, of the Gift, of the Cause, and manner of giuing thereof. The Giuer was Iohn, who as he was neuer rightlyp 1.1141 King, so neither had he, nor could haue any power at all to giue away the Kingdome, which was not his, nor of right belonged vnto him. For of the sixeq 1.1142 Sonnes of Henry the second, Iohn was the yongest; William and Henry dyed before their Father, and without Issue; Richard the third sonne, raigned after his Father, and dyed without Issue. The fourth sonne was Geffray, who dyed a little before his Father; but left issue, Arthur Duke of Brittaine; and Ele∣nor, called the Damsell of Brittaine. Phillip the fift sonne dyed yong, and without Issue. After the death of Richard, the Kingdome in right be∣longed to Arthur; but Iohn (the yongest sonne of Henry the second) by force inuaded, and by force withheld the Crowne from him. After the death of Arthur (which was in the fourth yeere,r 1.1143 after Iohn had taken the Kingdome) the whole right to the Crowne descended, and in right be∣longed to Elenor, the Sister of Arthur, who li∣ued full 23. yeeres after the death of Iohn: for Iohn dyeds 1.1144, anno 1217. and Elenor dyedt 1.1145 anno

1241. which was the 24. yeere of Henry the 3. sonne of Iohn. After which time all the brothers of Iohn and their issue also being extinct, the right of the Crowne remained in the issue of Iohn. By this now it is euident that Iohn at no time (and least of all, when hee was deposed and depriued of his Kingdome by the Popes iudiciall sentence as then he was when this Charter was made) had any right to the Kingdome; and seeing he had no right to take it to himself, much lesse had he right to giue it to another. He could giue no more thē he had: Right to the Kingdome hee had none in himselfe, right to the Kingdome hee could giue none to the Pope. Of his gift that may bee said which is vsually spoken in another matter, Nihil habuit dare, Nihil dedit. And although such Acts of Iohn as concerned the making of Lawes, or administration of Iustice either betwixt subiect & subiect, or himselfe and the subiects are to be held of force, as were also the like Acts of some other, and namely of Richard the third, one knowne and confessed by all to bee an Vsurper: though those Acts, I say, of Iohn be rightly iudged to be of force, because the State of the Kingdome con∣sented to his gouernment, and yeelded obedi∣ence vnto him, thinking it better to accept and obey such a King as had but a pretended title, ra∣ther then to haue no King or ruler at all; yet for his other Acts betwixt him and strangers, such as concerned the rights of the whole Kingdome and Re∣gality of the Crowne, and which tended to the bringing of the whole Kingdome into bondage

and vassallage vnto others; for these, neither the Acte of Iohn, nor of any other were, or were e∣uer iudged to be of force; there was an Inualidi∣tie in Iohn to doe such Acts, and when he did any such, there was a meere Nullitie in the same.

As the Giuer had no power to giue, so neither was the kingdome such a Gift as could be passed away by Iohn. For no Emperour can without the consent of his State, giue his Empire to a stranger; seeing in so doing, he should preiudice the rights of others, and make them subiects and vassals to another, without their owne con∣sent: whereas both equitie and naturall reason teacheth, as out of Lupoldusu 1.1146 was before decla∣red, that the Act which preiudiceth the right of o∣thers must be approued by them all. Now although in the Charters, King Iohn is made to say, that he did this communi consilio Baronum, by the com∣mon consent of his Barons; yet was that clause, as many other, most falsely and fraudulently put into the Charters by the Popes Legates. The Ba∣rons and State were so farre from consenting to this Grant, that when the first Charter was sea∣led at Douer, Henrie Archbishop of Dublin the principall man in that assembly, (in the name as it seemes of the rest) did Reclamarex 1.1147, openly dis∣claime the same, and greeue thereat. And when the second was sealed in Pauls, Stephen Lancton, the Archbishop of Canterburie, (a Cardinall, and the Popes owne creature, but in this a true louer of his Countrey) Appellationesy 1.1148 solenniter fecit ante altare, made solemne Appeales before the

altar against that writing, which wasz 1.1149 toti mundo execrabile, detestable to the whole world. By ver∣tue of these appealesa 1.1150, as also of the right in the cause it selfe. Rafe Neuil Chancelor of England doubted not openly to say, and his speech was related to the Pope himselfe by Simon Langeton, That the yoakeb 1.1151 of the Pope to which Iohn had subiected Eng∣land, might iustly be shaken off, and that for so do∣ing, himselfe would striue euen to the losse of his head. How much the Barons disliked this Grant of King Iohn, his owne words to Pope Innocen∣tius, as also the Popes answer, doe witnesse: Our Earles and Barons, saith hec 1.1152, and the Pope writes* 1.1153 the like, were deuout and louing vnto vs, till we had subiected our selues to your dominion, but since that time, & specialiter ob hoc, and specially euen for so doing, they all rise vp against vs. The ma∣nifold opprobrious speeches vsed by the Barons against King Iohn, for this subiecting himselfe and his kingdome to the Pope, doe declare the same▪ Iohn, said theyd 1.1154, is no King, but the shame of Kings; Better to be no King then such a King: Be∣hold a King without a kingdome: a Lord without Do∣minion; Alasse thou wretch, and seruant of lowest condition, to what misery of thraldome hast thou brought thy selfe? Fuisti Rex, nunc fex, Thou wast a King, now thou art a Cow-heard, Thou wast the highest, now the lowest. Fyee 1.1155 on thee, Iohn, the last of Kings, the abhomination of English Princes, the confusion of English Nobilitie; Alas England, that thou art made tributarie, and subiect to the rule of base seruants! of strangers! and which is

most miserable, subiect to the seruant of seruants! Thou Iohn, whose memorie will be wofull in future time, thou of a most free King, hast made thy selfe tributary, a farmer, a vassall, and that to seruitude it selfe: this thou hast done, that all might be drow∣ned in barathro Romanae auaritiae, in the Hel of the Romish auarice. Yea, so detestable was both this fact of Iohn, and dealing of the Pope, that Philip the French King, though the mortall enemie of King Iohn, hearing thereof, euen vpon this very point, that the Barons and State did not consent to that Act, did proclaime both the absolute free∣dome of the kingdome of England, notwith∣standing this Grant of Iohn, and declaime also against the Pope, for seeking to enthrall king∣domes vnto him. For when Gualof 1.1156 the Popes Legate, told him that the kingdome of England was now become the Popes patrimony, by the guift of King Iohn, Philip presently replyed, & his words are very remarkable, Regnum Angliae patrimonium B. Petri nunquam fuit, nec est, nec erit; The king∣dome of England neuer was, nor is, nor shall be the Patrimonie of Peter. And the King gaue two reasons of his so worthy and resolute asser∣tion; the oneg 1.1157, because Iohn was neuer King, and therefore could not giue away the kingdome; The other, becauseh 1.1158 Nullus Rex, No King nor Prince can giue away the kingdome (which is the Common-wealths) without the assent of his Barons, who are bound to defend the kingdome; and if the Pope being allured by the lust of Dominion, determine to maintaine this error, he giues a pernicious example

vnto all kingdomes. At which sayingi 1.1159, all the Noble men of France that were present, began vno ore clamare, to cry with one voyce, That they would stand to this truth vsque ad mortem, euen to death, That the Pope cannot at his pleasure giue kingdomes, or make Kings tributary, whereby their Nobles shall be made slaues to whom he will: Nay, they did not onely say it, but swearek 1.1160 also, that they would spend their liues in this quarrell. Be∣sides all which, there is yet a farre more authen∣tick proofe of the inualidity of King Iohns grant, and that is the Iudgement of the whole king∣dome assembled in Parliament in the time of Edward the third. This matter touching the Grant which King Iohn made to the Pope, be∣ing proposed and discussed in that Parliament; Vponl 1.1161 full deliberation, the Prelates, Dukes, Earles, Barons and Commons answered and said with one accord, that neither the said King Iohn, nor any o∣ther, can put him, nor his Realme, nor his people in such subiection without their assent: and as by many euidences appeareth, if it was done, it was done with∣out their assent, and contrary to his owne oath at his Coronation. And besides this, the Dukes, Earles, Barons, Gentlemen, and Commons, doe accord and agree, that in case the Pope shall enforce, or attempt by processe, or by any other manner of doing, to constraine the King or his subiects to performe this, (as it is said he will) these parties will resist and withstand it with all their puissance. Thus are the words of the Act: A demonstration aboue all exception, that to the Grant or Charter made

by K. Iohn to the Pope, there was no assent of the Realme; and therefore that K. Iohn neither did, nor could by that his Grant, or by either of those Charters, resigne or transferre his kingdome to the Pope, but that in his very Act of doing it, there is not onely an Inualiditie, but a meere Nullitie.

The third Nullitie ariseth from the Cause, which moued Iohn to make this Grant to the Pope. And though in both the Charters Iohn is made to say that he did it, for pietie and deuotion, to make satisfaction to God and the Church for his sinnes; that he did it also bona nostra spontaneaque voluntate, of his owne free accord, and with a willing mind; yet are these in truth, nothing else but pretences: An easie matter it was for the Pope and his Legates, to make Iohn write what colou∣rable pretence they listed, when they made him giue away his kingdome to whom, and as they listed. The true and onely Cause inducing, nay en∣forcing Iohn to make this Grant, was that immi∣nent danger and feare, to loose both his Crowne and his life also, into which extremitie, both of danger and feare, the Pope himselfe had now first brought Iohn, that so he might bee plyable to his owne perswasions, & then held him so fast inwrapped and ensnared, that without the Popes helpe he was now inextricable. His land was now vnder a generall Interdictn 1.1162, and had so re∣mained for fiue whole yeares, like an Heathenish Nation, without celebration of diuine Seruice and Sacraments. Iohn himselfe was by name Ex∣communicatedo 1.1163,

and had so remained for diuers yeares: Allp 1.1164 his subiects were released and freed à Regis fidelitate et subiectione, from owing eyther fidelitie or subiection to him; yea they were for∣bidden, and that vnder the paine of excommunica∣tion, so much as to company or conuerse with him, ei∣ther at Table, or in counsell, or in speech and confe∣rence. Further yet, Iohn was deposed from his kingdome, and that iudicially, àq 1.1165 iure regni ab∣dicatus et sententialiter condemnatus in Curia Ro∣mana, being in the Romane Court depriued of all right to his kingdome, and iudicially con∣demned; and that Sentencer 1.1166 of his Deposition and Depriuation, was solenniter promulgata, solem∣ly denounced and promulgated, before the French King, Clergie, and people of France. Neither one∣ly was Iohn thus deposed, but his kingdome also giuen away by the Pope, and that euen to his most mortall enemy. For the Popes 1.1167 to bring his sentence to execution, writ vnto Philip the French King, perswading, yea inioyningt 1.1168 him to vndertake that labour of dethroning Iohn (actually, as iudi∣cially he was before) and expelling him from the kingdome, promising vnto him, not onely remissi∣on of all his sinnes, but that ipse et successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent, he and his heires should for euer haue the kingdome of England: withall the Popeu 1.1169 writ letters to all No∣bles, Souldiers, and Warriers in diuers Countries, to signe themselues with the Crosse, and assist Philip for the deiection of Iohn. Philip was not a little glad of such an offer, gathered forcesx 1.1170, and all

things fit for such an expedition, expending in that preparation no lesse theny 1.1171 60 thousand pounds. Allz 1.1172 these things being notified to King Iohn, did not a little daunt him; And though he was too sensible of the impendent calamities, yet to strike a greater terror into his amazed heart, and make a more dreadfull impression in his minde, of the dangers which now were ready to fall on his head, Pandulph was sent from the Pope vnto him, to negotiate about the resigning of his kingdome, to which if he would consent, hee should finde fauour, protection, and deliuerance at the Popes hands. Pandulph by a craftie kinde of Romish Oratorie, at his comming to the King, expressed, yea painted out in most liuely colours all the difficulties and dangersa 1.1173 to which the King was subiect, The losse of his Crowne, the losse of his honour, the losse of his life. That there wasb 1.1174 no other way in the world to escape them, nisi sub alis domini Papae potenter protegatur, but by protection vnder the Popes wings. Iohnc 1.1175 seeing dangers vndique imminere, to hang ouer him on euery side, by the French abroad, by the Barons at home, and being deiected, and mented 1.1176 nimis per∣turbatus, vtterly dismayed and confounded with the ponderation of them, resolued for sauing his life, to loose his libertie and honour: and to saue his kingdome from his open aduersarie, to loose it and giue it quite away to his secret, but worst enemie that he had: doing herein as if one for feare of being slaine in the open field, should kill himselfe in his owne chamber. It was not pietie

but extreame perill; nor deuotion, but feare onely, and dispaire that caused, and euen enforced Iohn against his will, to make this Grant to the Pope. Parisiensis rightly obserued this when he saide 1.1177, Demersus Rex in desperationem, King Iohn being then drowned in Dispaire, made that shamefull a∣greement, volens nolens, with an vnwilling will to the Pope. And truly the very same cause in∣duced Iohn to make the second Charter. For be∣sides that the Interdictf 1.1178 was not then released, K. Iohn knew by experience, that if he had incen∣sed the Pope, by not yeelding to his motion, the Pope would, and could as easily now as before, vse his power of Excommunication, Depositi∣on, and giuing away his kingdome. As Feare and Force imminent, caused him to make the first, so Feare and Force foreseene, caused and compel∣led him to make the second Charter. And what validitie can there possibly bee in those Actes which are done per vim & Metum? It is a rule in the Lawg 1.1179, confirmed by a perpetual Edict, Inter∣positas metu transactiones ratas non haberi, that such agreements as are made for feare, are of no validitie. We command, say the Emperoursh 1.1180, that those Venditions, Donations, and Transactions bee void, quae per potentiā extortae sunt, which by force & power are extorted. Innocentius himselfe de∣clares the same, euen in another Act of this King Iohn. The Baronsi 1.1181 not preuailing by perswasi∣ons with him, tooke the Citie of London from him, and being in armes, forced him to confirme some liberties and lawes vnto them. Iohn hauing made

complaint thereof to Pope Innocentius, he thus writk 1.1182 of that matter, Iohn being destitute of helpe and aduise also, durst not deny what they required, vnde compulsus est per vim & metum, whereup∣on he was compelled by Force and Feare (which may fall into a man though he be most constant) to make both a shamefull and wicked composition with them; That composition reprobamus penitus ac dam∣namus, we vtterly reiect and condemne; and all the Couenants and Obligations conteined therein, we make altogether frustrate and voide. Boniface 8. entreating of some things done by the Kings of Scotland, which seemed preiudicial to their right, saithl 1.1183, Ea vtpote per vim & metum elicita nequa∣quam debent de iure subsistere, those things being done by reason of Force and Feare, (which may happen to a constant man) ought not in Law to be of validitie, nor to redound to the preiudice of the kingdome. Whose saying doth equally in e∣uery respect, shew the inualiditie in this Act of King Iohn. Pope Pascalis with an whole Coun∣cell decreed the like. Hee being imprisonedm 1.1184 by Henrie 5. by a faire Charter resigned vnto the Em∣perour, the Inuesti••ures of Bishops, and ordering of the See Apostolike. The Pope was no sooner at li∣bertie, and the feare past, but calling a Laterane Councell, they reuoke and adiudge that Grant, e∣uen because it was per violentiam extortum, made by constraint, to be of no force, to bee Prauilegium, not Priuilegium. Were they not quite blinded with partialitie, they could not chuse but con∣fesse, that much more this Charter and Grant of

King Iohn must be inualid; the Grant to Henrie was iust and lawful, being that which in right be∣longed vnto him: this Grant of Iohn was sundry waies iniurious; iniurious to Iohn himselfe, it be∣ing contrary to his iust oath formerly taken: in∣iurious to the whole State and kingdome, whose liberties it enthralled: iniurious to the Crowne, as taking away the Regality thereof. Seeing they vpon that rule of Gesta per vim et metū non valent, adnull the iust Charter and Grant of Pope Pasca∣lis to the Emperour, they doe warrant vs by the same rule to pronounce a Nullity of the iniurious Charters and Grant of King Iohn vnto the Pope.

The last Inualidity, ariseth out of the very Man∣ner of the Grant, and of the making thereof. For after all that K. Iohn either resigneth, giueth or granteth any way to the Pope, this Prouiso and Exception, or Reseruation is expresly set downe, Saluis nobis et haeredibus nostris, Iustitijs, Libertati∣bus, et Regalibus nostris. Sauing to vs and to our heires, our Rights, Liberties, and Regalities. Which words being expressed in the former Charter, the Copy whereof is vulgarly extant & obuious vnto all, I supposed that the principal, if not the onely reason, why the Pope procured his second writing had bene, to haue this clause (which adnulleth all the former Grant) expun∣ged and left out in the second and golden Char∣ter. But when I found the selfe••same Prouiso, and that totidem verbis, expressed in both the Charters, I did euen wonder to see their vanity, and with what insolency they boast that Soue∣raignty

of Dominion is here giuen to the Pope, and the King made an homager and vassall vnto him by this Grant: all which this one Prouiso doth manifest to be vntrue. For the Right of a King is Soueraigntie of Dominion: The Libertie of a King, is Freely and Absolutely to rule, without being subiect or seruant to any other mortall man. And the very essence of Regalitie, as I haue before shewed, is Supremacy of authoritie, Inde∣pendent of any, saue onely of God. Seeing all these are expresly and directly excepted in both the Charters, they vtterly made void whatsoeuer is before mentioned, either as granting Soueraign∣ty to the Pope, or as acknowledging subiection in the King. In both these respects, by reason of this one Prouiso & Exception, there is a certaine Nullity of the Grant made in both the Charters. Much more might be added; But for further sa∣tisfaction in this whole point concerning these Grants, I gladly refer the Reader to the History of King Iohns life, so faithfully, exactly, and iudi∣ciously set forthn 1.1185, by my learned friend M^r D^r Barkam, that were the rest of our Country Story sutable thereunto, few humane Histories of king∣domes could be preferred before it.

Their third and last proofe, concernes Henrie the second, father of this King Iohn. Card. Al∣leno 1.1186 pretends that Henrie the second, when hee was absolued for the death of Thomas Becket, made an agreement with Pope Alexander the third, that none might lawfully take the kingdome of England till hee were confirmed by the Pope.

And both Baroniusp 1.1187 and Bellarmineq 1.1188, and after them Becanusr 1.1189 and Gretsers 1.1190 alledge to this pur∣pose, an Epistle of Henry the second, set downe a∣mong the Epistles of Pet. Blesensist 1.1191, wherein King Henry acknowledgeth the Pope to bee his temporall Lord, and himselfe the Popes Feu∣datary. Vestrae Iurisdictionis est Regnum Angliae: The Kingdome of England belongs to your Iu∣risdiction, and by Feudatary obligation I am bound and obnoxious to none but to you. Let England know what the Pope can doe; and because the Church v∣seth not materiall weapons, let it defend the Patri∣mony of Saint Peter by the spirituall Sword. Where∣unto I answere, that both this pretence of a Co∣uenant, and Feudatary subiection, is vntrue; and that Epistle going vnder the name of Henry the second, wherein this is acknowledged, is either wholly forged, or in that part or passage corrup∣ted. Whereof there are so many euident profes, or rather Demonstrations, that none of sound iudgement duely pondering the same, can iustly make any doubt thereof. Had the Pope knowne this Kingdome to haue beene the Popes Patri∣mony, and the Kings therof Feudatary vnto them in the time of Henry the father of K. Iohn, or could they haue shewed that King Henry had acknow∣ledged this vnder his hand and seale, would they haue beene so simple as to haue laboured so ear∣nestly and craftily to draw King Iohn to make those Charters of Resignation, and that grant of the Soueraignty thereof vnto them? What could either K. Iohn resigne, grant, or giue vnto them,

or the Popes receiue more then was their owne before, and that by the authenticall acknowledg∣ment of King Henry? Seeing this acknowledge∣ment of King Henry, vtterly adnuls the Grant, and both the Charters of K. Iohn, wherin they so much triumph, & for which (as also for the Popes earnest labour to obtaine the same) there are so cretaine and vndoubtfull Records, euen them∣selues must either confes this Epistle and acknow∣ledgement of King Henry, to be a Forgery, or else for euer disclaime the Charters of King Iohn, and whatsoeuer is granted therin vnto them. Had the Pope knowne this Kingdome to be his Patrimo∣ny, and himselfe to be the Lord thereof, by any acknowledgement of King Henry, why did hee not protect K. Iohn, and his Kingdome against the Barons, against Philip the French K. and against Lewis his sonne, as well before Iohn had made those Charters, as hee did after? specially seeing he giues this very reason why he protected Iohn, becauseu 1.1192 he was his Vassall, and a Feudatarte vnto him, one whom in duty he was to protect and defend. For thus saidx 1.1193 the Pope to the Legates of Lew∣es. He ought not to make warre (no not iust warre) against King Iohn, but he must make complaint to Iohns higher Lord, to wit the Pope, Cui subest Rex Angliae tanuqam vassallus eius, whose Vassall King Iohn is. Nay why did the Pope incite K. Philip, to inuade England, to dethrone King Iohn, and pro∣mise his Kingdome vnto him, if it was the Patrimo∣ny of S^t. Peter, by any Grant or acknowledge∣ment from K. Henry? Or how could Innocentius

the third, in his Bully 1.1194 of Acceptation of Iohns Charter, haue said in such a glorying manner, That now vpon K. Iohns Grant, was fulfilled, that which Saint Peter saith: Regnum Sacerdotale, et Sacerdotum regale. The Pope being now made (in respect of England) like Melchisedek, both a King and a Priest! That this and other Prouin∣ces, quae olim, which formerly held the Roman Church, for her Mistresse in spirituall matters, Nunc etiam in Temporalibus Dominam habeant spe∣cialem, hath the same Church now (vpon King Iohns Grant) for her Lady in Temporall affaires also? Innocentius doth hereby cleerely witnes that this Realme of England, neuer till K. Iohns time acknowledged the Roman Church for her Lord in temporall matters. And therfore by the Popes owne iudgement, neither Henry the second, nor any former King did euer acknowledge, as in that forged Epistle Henry is made to doe, this Realme to haue beene the Patrimonie of Peter, or the Kings thereof Feudataries to the Pope.

Besides this there are diuers reasons that may per∣swade that K. Henry neuer writ that Epistle, at least not that passage therein, nor euer made any such acknowledgement. There is extant a Letterz 1.1195 of this King Henry, to Pascalis the third, who suc∣ceeded to Octauianus, called Victor the 3. and was chosen Pope in the time when Rowland cal∣led Alexander the 3. held the See. Pascalis is ac∣counted by thema 1.1196 for an Antipope, but as before I shewed, Alexander was indeede a Pseudopope, which much impaireth the credit of Henries E-Epistle

and acknowledgement made vnto him. Henry after congratulation for his election, and signification how he sent that pension of Peter∣pence vnto him, which he expressely calls Benefici∣um, as noting it to be giuen in curtesie, and as an Almes, not as a duty, he thus saith, What honour and obedience your See had in the time of my father, and Predecessors, the same I will that you haue in my time: In this tenor that I also do entirely enioy those dignities and customes in my Kingdome, which my Ancestors had in the same: And I certifie you that as long as I liue, the dignities and customes of my King∣dome shall not (God willing) bee impayred. And though I (which God forbid) should so much deiect my selfe, yet my Nohles, imo totus Angliae populus id nullo modo pateretur; yea the whole Kingdome of England will not suffer the impayring thereof. So cleerely and constantly doth King Henry pro∣test that neither himselfe would, neither would his people permit the impayring of the dignities and custome of the Kingdome: and therefore that neither himselfe nor they would euer ac∣knowledge such Feudatary subiection to the Pope, as in that forged Epistle is both against the mind, the hand and seale of the King, and against the consent of the Kingdome acknowledged. Those other acts of King Henry, recorded in Hi∣storians, do shew the same. He forbadb 1.1197 any to ap∣peale to the Pope, and that also, qualicunque de causa, for any cause whatsoeuer, without the Kings leaue. He accounted and often called,c 1.1198 Thomas Becket a Traytor for applealing to the Pope, and seeking

helpe of him against the King: He entreatedd 1.1199 aid of Frederick the Emperour, to depose Alexander the Pope, eo quod proditoris Thomae causam fouit, be∣cause he tooke part with the Traytor Thomas a∣gainst him: He decreed, that if anye 1.1200 brought into England either any letters or mandate from the Pope, containing an interdict of the land, hee should bee ap∣prehended, and iustice without delay done vnto him, Sicut de traditore Regis ac Regni, as on a Traytor to the King and Kingdome. He decreed thatf 1.1201 nei∣ther Archbishop nor other, should without his leaue go out of the Kingdome, no not ad vocationem domini Papae, though the Pope called him: He profes∣sedg 1.1202 obedience to the Popes sacred commands, but with this Prouiso. Salua sibi sua, regnique sui digni∣tate: alwayes sauing his owne dignity and the Kingdomes (by which one Prouiso his regall So∣ueraignty is kept safe.) His oath taken at that ve∣ry time when he was absolued, after the death of Becket, is worthy obseruing. One part whereof was this, that heh 1.1203 would not reuolt from Pope A∣lexander and his successors, quamdiu ipsum sicut Re∣gem catholicum ••abuerint, so long as they entrea∣ted him as a Catholike King (and that is, so long as they touch not his regall Soueraignty, or at∣tempted ought against it.) Another part was, that hei 1.1204 would not hinder appeales to the Pope in cau∣ses Ecclesiasticall (in ciuill he would) but yet with this Prouiso (which kept his soueraignty safe) that if any were suspected, they should put in security, that they would not hurt either him or his Kingdome: Vp∣on such security, he permitted onely, but allowed

not, and that onely in Ecclesiasticall causes, ap∣peales to the Pope. These and a number the like, as they are cleare euidences, that he still as well after as before the death of Becket, kept the Soue∣raignty of the Kingdome in himselfe, so they de∣monstrate that acknowledgement of the Popes superior authority vnto him, and that himselfe was a Feudatarie to the Pope, mentioned in that Epistle to be a meere fiction and forgery, deuised by some vnskilfull fauorer of the Pope.

To all which may bee added the iudgment of their learned Arch-priest, who entreating of that accord betwixt King Henry the second, and Pope Alexander the third, which Cardinall Allane mentioneth, not only taxethk 1.1205 the Cardinall for o∣uersight in that point, but further also of his asser∣tion resolutely saith: It is vntrue, adding that King Henry the second neuer made any such accord, for ought that he could euer reade in any Chronicle of credit. Now it is not to be doubted, but that so learned a man, exercised in the diligent search of such matters, had both read and knew right well of this Epistle, going vnder the name of King Henry the second, so familiar and obuious in their writings; but because he iudged that Epistle to be of no credit, he therfore denyed any such grant to haue bin euer made. But enough touching England, to manifest the vanity of their boasting, that the Kingdome thereof, euen ex quo Christi nomen ibi clarificatum est, euer since Christianity was im∣braced therein, hath beene in the hand and power of S. Peter, as Popel 1.1206 Alexander the 2. saith, or as Stan.

Christanouicm 1.1207 explaines it, hath at all times bin tri∣butarie to the Pope: whereas we haue now by many and by authenticke euidences demonstrated, that euer since the first planting of the faith in this Land, it hath still beene an Imperiall Kingdome, subiect to none but onely and immediatly vnto God.

For the Kingdome of Scotland, I will onely heere mention two Testimonies. The former of Cassaneusn 1.1208. The King of Scots, non habet superio∣rem nisi ipsum Creatore, hath no superior vnto him but onely God. The other of the whole State of England. When Boniface the 8. challengedo 1.1209 the Kingdome of Scotland to belong pleno iure, in full right to the Church of Rome, as to the direct and su∣preame Lord thereof, the Earles, Barons and No∣bles of England after diligent examination of the whole matter, with one consent returned this an∣swerep 1.1210 to Boniface. The Kingdome of Scotland, nullis temporibus, in temporalibus pertinuit, vel per∣tinet quouis iure, ad Ecclesiam vestram, doth not now, nor at any time did belong by any right vn∣to your Roman Church. Which one authentick testimony is enough to silence for euer their vaine pretences for that Kingdome.

For the Kingdome of Ireland, how farre it was from acknowledgement of the Popes temporall Monarchie, may certainely be discerned by their condemning his Ecclesiasticall soueraignty, and that by consenting voyce in their Parliaments. In the time of Kingq 1.1211 Henry the 7. all the statutes made in England against Prouisors, were authorized, con∣firmed and decreed to be of force for Ireland. The like

Statute against Prouisors was made in the time of Henry the sixthr 1.1212, yea a more seuere law was made in the time of Edw. the fourth, Thats 1.1213 such as purchase any Bulls of Prouision in the Court of Rome, as soone as they haue published or executed the same to the hurt of any Incumbent, should be adiudged Traytors.

The like might be declared of the Kingdomes of Denmarke, Suetia, Hungaria, Russia, and the rest, which are mentioned in Nicholas Cardinal of Ar∣ragonia, and after him in Steuchus and Gretzer: for them all in generall, that one testimony of their owne, Dom. Soto, being so full and cleare to our purpose, may suffice at this time. Pope Innocenti∣us, saith het 1.1214, ingeniously confesseth, that he hath no power in temporall matters, ouer the French King: Et quiquid alij somniant, id de omnibus regnis intelligit, and whatsoeuer others dreame, the Pope vnder∣stands this of all other Kingdomes. But omitting other particulars touching them, I will only now in the last place entreat of the Roman Empire, which both by Act and Word, to haue reiected their papall Monarchie, might by innumerable testimonies and examples, be made euident. Of them all, I will briefely mention but a few, hauing in many passages before set downe much to this purpose.

Constantine the great, the first Christian Empe∣ror, was so far from acknowledging that Papall monarchy, that himself exercised supreme autho∣rity, & that not only in Ciuill, but euen in Eccle∣siastical causes. The Donatists brought vnto him a

very troublesome cause, and many accusations a∣gainst Cecilianus. He being at the first vnacquaintedt 1.1215 with the Canons, durstu 1.1216 not (personally, or by him∣selfe) giue sentence therein, but he did that which demonstrated his Soueraignty both of authority & iudgement; for causamx 1.1217 iudicandam atque finen∣dam Episcopis delegauit, he delegated and deputed Bishops to iudge in his roome, and to end that businesse: first Maternus,y 1.1218 Rhetilius, and Marinus, to whom he ioyned Pope Meltiades, & iunxitz 1.1219 causam audiendam, and hee enioyned or gaue a precept to the Pope and them to heare the cause, and to end it. When the Donatists appealed from the Synodall iudgement of the Pope▪ the Em∣peroura 1.1220 dedit alios iudices, appoynted other Iud∣ges at Arles, to iudge euen of the Popes iudge∣ment. When the Donatists yet againe appealed from them also, Constantine though hee might iusty haue reiected their appeale after so many iudgements giuen by those Bishops, yet he tooke the iudgementb 1.1221 thereof into his owne hands, à sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus, saith Saint Austen, purposing to craue pardon of the Bi∣shops, for vndertaking to iudge in that same cause which he had appoynted to bee ended by thē. Himselfc 1.1222 personally then heard the whole cause, and Episcopalem causam cognitam terminauit, sayth S. Austen, he made a finall conclusion and deter∣mination of all that ecclesiastical matter; & withal made a most seuere law against the Donatists. Can there be desired moe, or more cleare euidēces, that this most religious Emperor esteemed not the pa¦pal,

but his own Imperial authority to be supreme in these causes? His delegating & appoynting of Iud∣ges, euen the Pope for one, his receiuing appeales, and giuing other Iudges after the Popes iudiciall sentence past, his owne personall hearing the cause, and finall ending of it by his owne iudgement, are euident proofes of his superiority aboue the Pope. And this Imperiall iudgement was so ap∣proued by the Church, that S. Austen little lesse then triumpheth therein against the Donatists. Constantine, sayth hed 1.1223, is dead, Sed iudicium Con∣stantini contra vos viuit, but the iudgement of Constantine against you doth still liue. The Em∣perours (Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius and Va∣lentinean) doe command the same that Christs com∣mands, because when they command what is good, per illos non iubet nisi Christus, none but Christ doth command by them: yea S. Austen, in this very cause, besides this of Imperiall superiority aboue the Pope, expresly declares that there is another iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes aboue him: for speaking of the Synodall iudgement of Pope Meltiades, of which the Donatists complained as vniust, Let vs, saith hee 1.1224, suppose those Bishops who iudged this cause at Rome, to haue beene ill iudges, restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae concilium, there re∣mained yet a generall Councell of the Church, where the cause might be debated, cum ipsis iudicibus, euen with iudges thēselues, one of which was the Pope. No maruell if Stapletonf 1.1225 was so displeased at this example, so ancient, and withall so preg∣nant against their doctrine, that he, reuiling Con∣stantine,

for that very iudgement, for which S. Austen and the whole Church honoured him, shamed not to say of him, that he waded farre be∣yond the borders of his owne vocation. But wisdome is iustified of her owne children.

Iustinian in his Imperiall lawes fully declares this Soueraignty of Emperours aboue the Pope, There is saith heg 1.1226, nothing exempth 1.1227 from the Prin∣ces inquisition, who hath receiued from God communē in omnes homines moderationem, & principatum, a common Regiment and Soueraignty ouer all men. His owne acts also, as by name the Bani∣shing of Pope Siluerius, the commanding Pope Vi∣gilius to come to Constantinople, and staying him there till the Emperour gaue him leaue to de∣part, and diuers the like, doe manifest that hee iudged the Imperiall authoritie to be a superiour euen a commanding power aboue the Papall.

The like Soueraignty doth Basilius the Empe∣rour testifie to belong to himselfe and al the Em∣perours, when in the presence, and with the ap∣probation of that, which they call the eight ge∣nerall Councell, he expresly thus saydi 1.1228, The go∣uernment of the Ecclesiasticall ship (that is of the whole Church) is by diuine prouidence nobis com∣missa, committed to vs who are Emperours.

I would gladly stay a little in speaking of Charles the Great, specially because Sciopius hath so insolently and so vildly misused him, meta∣morphisingk 1.1229 him into an Asse, into a right Issa∣char, that is into a strong Asse, yea into an Asse with Bels about his necke, that it will not seeme a∣misse,

for vindicating his honour against such rai∣ling Shemeys to make manifest how this renow∣ned Emperor was in very deed the high cōmander both of the Pope and all others in his Empire. See first how by his commanding authority hee calls the Pope and other Bishops out of their Pro∣uinces to the Councell at Frankford. Iussimusl 1.1230 Synodale Concilium, we haue commanded a Coun∣cell to be held at Frankford of all the Bishops within our dominions. Among those Bishops the Pope was one, who at the Emperours command was present in that Councell by his two Legatesm 1.1231 Theo∣philactus and Stephanus, whom he sent to supply his roome therein. Let Scioppius now say who was then the Asse, the Pope, who obeyd the Em∣perours command, or Charles who like the chiefe muliter droue the Pope to what fould hee listed.

See next how this great Emperour not onely resisted the Popes doctrine and direction, and that also in a matter of faith, but like the holy Angell of God, reproued the Romish Balaam, and his Baaliticall Idolatry, in their adoration of I∣mages. There are extant foure large bookes cal∣led Libri Carolini, wherein not onely the doctrine and decree of their second Nicene Councell about Images is fully, and by many diuine authorities and reasons refuted, but that second Nicene Synod is as Hincmarusn 1.1232 sayth, penitus abdicata, vtterly re∣iected therein, yea Athelmuso 1.1233 addes, that the se∣cond Nicene Synod was so wholly reiected, vt nec septima nec vniuerssalis haberetur, dicereturue, that it should neither bee esteemed nor called the se∣uenth,

or any generall Councell. That Charles the great was the Authour and writer of this booke, Aug. Steuchus witnesseth, sayingp 1.1234, Charles the great writing of Images in the first booke and sixth chapter, thus sayth: and then hee repeateth that whole Chapter of the Li••ri Carolini. The like is witnes∣sed by Eckiusq 1.1235, Charles the great quaituor libros scripsit writ foure bookes against such as take away Images. Bellarminer 1.1236 is of opinion that they were nots 1.1237 writ by Charles, but by the Counsell at Frank∣ford, seeing there is set downe the very acts of that Councell, and this both out of Hincmarus, and the bookes themselues hee declares. Both their opi∣nions are in part true, for it is certaine, that some parts of those bookes were written by Charles: Of the Preface, in whicht 1.1238 their 2. Nicene Synod is reiec∣ted, it is euident to be the preface of Charles, Thisu 1.1239 worke we haue vndertaken with the consent of those Bishops which are set ouer Catholicke flockes, in regno à Deo nobis concesso, in the kingdome giuen vnto vs by God; which words can agree to none but to Charles. Againe of the last Chapter, wherein Charles professethx 1.1240 to follow the iudgement of Gre∣gorie the great, who writ thus to Serenus, Weey 1.1241 praise you that you forbad them to adore Images, but we reproue you that ye brake them downe. This chap∣ter to be the true writing of Charles the great, Pope Hadrianz 1.1242 expresly testifieth. So both the begin∣ning and ending of those bookes are the writing of Charles. The rest of the bookes wherein all of any moment which is set downe in the second Nicene Synod is repeated and refuted, seemes

indeed to be written▪ as Bellarmine sayth, by the Councell at Frankford, but yet so, that it was ap∣proued by Charles. And because according to the lawa 1.1243, Omnia nostra facimus quibus nostram imparti∣mur authoritatem, they were vsually and rightly sayd to be the bookes of Charles. This, Hincmarus witnesseth, sayingb 1.1244, By the authority of the Councell of Frankford, the worshipping of Images was some∣what repressed, yet Hadrian and other Popes after the death of Charles, suarum pupparum cultum ve∣hementius promouerunt, did more earnestly labour for the worshipping of their puppets, so that Lewes the sonne of Charles, libro longe acriori in∣sectatus sit imaginum cultum quam Carolus▪ did in a more sharpe booke write against the worship∣ping of Images then Charles had done, where hee plainely testifieth those bookes writ against the a∣doration of Images to be the bookes of Charles. The Councell at Paris held in the time of Lewes, witnesseth also those books to haue bin written with the allowance and approbation, yea in part by the direction of Charles. When your father Charles, say theyc 1.1245, had caused the second Nicene Synod to be read before himselfe and his Bishops (in the Councell at Frankford) et multis in locis vt dignum erat reprehendisset, and when hee had in many places reproued it, as it well deserued, and when further hee had noted and obserued certaine chapters of the Nicene Synod which were to bee re∣proued, he sent the same chapters by Euguilbert an Abbot to Pope Hadrian, vt illius indicio et authori∣tate corrigeretur, that they should bee amended

by Pope Hadrianus authoritie and iudgement. Now seeing those bookes which Charles sent to Hadrian, and which Hadrian answered, were no other but these very foure Libri Carolini, as Bellar∣mined 1.1246 rightly professeth, and as any who compa∣reth the one with the other, cannot chuse but ac∣knowledge; it euidently hence followeth, that what Chapters of the second Nicene Councell are in those bookes reproued, the reproofe was either praenotata obserued, or at least allowed by Charles. Seeing so great an Emperor as Charles not onely reiected and condemned their second Nicene Synod which Pope Hadrian had confir∣med, but writ or published large bookes, and that vnder his owne name against that Synod, yea when hee admonished the Pope to correct and amend his Nicene Synod, and the Decrees thereof: let Scioppius here againe say, who seemes to him in this cause to bee the Muliter, and who the Asse; and whether Charles be such a wise that is obedient Asse as hee foolishly boasteth hee was.

See lastly how in this very point touching the Popes temporall Monarchy, (in respect whereof Scioppius accounts and calls him one of their greatest Asses) hee was in very truth one of their Popes greatest Muliters and Commanders. Charles the great, saith Iac. Almanee 1.1247 did not acknow∣ledge any superiorem in temporalibus, to be aboue him in temporall matters. Nay hee tooke, and that rightly a Soueraignty aboue all, euen in the Pope himselfe. Hee hadf 1.1248 the election of the Pope, he had the ordering of the Apostolicall See; he

had the Soueraigne disposingg 1.1249 of Rome and Ita∣ly, hauing conquered and obtained it iure belli, he gaue (as to Tenants vnder himselfe) Duke∣domes and Cities, to whom he would, Permisit pontifi∣ci, he permitted the Pope to haue the Exarchate of of Rauenna, the Dukedome of Rome, and other Cities, and he permitted the Pope with this Prouiso to haue them, Iure principatus & ditione sibi retenta: he let the Pope haue only vsum fructum, the vse, profit and commodity of those territories, but the Soueraignty and supreme dominion hee re∣serued still to himselfe, as Sigonius and 300. yeeres before him, Eutropius witnesseth: who saithh 1.1250 that Charles ordained that all the people of Rome, tam E∣piscopi, quam la••ci, as well Bishops as Lay-men, should be Homines Imperatoris, the Emperours men. Now because Scioppius saithi 1.1251, that Rome is the meate, and the fould of the Church, whether the Pope and his Cardinals, who eate such Fodder, and are couped in that Fould, bee to bee called Asses, or Charles who allowed them this Fodder and this Fould, I leaue it to the iudgement of any saue onely Scioppius, who accounts himselfe▪ and not without cause, one of that fouldk 1.1252 of Asses.

O but, Charles cryed out, sayth Scioppiusl 1.1253 to all the fould of Asses, lets honour the Roman Church (that is the Pope) and beare with humility, whatsoeuer yoke he imposeth though it be almost insupportable: which is the saying of a right Issachar. But why doth not Scioppius tel you, where Charles the great said this? Or how knowes he, that Charles euer vsed such a

true Issachars saying? If he rely, as Baroniusm 1.1254 doth herein, on Gratians authority, wheren 1.1255 this is ci∣ted vnder the name of Charles, their owne Posse∣uineo 1.1256 will tell him, and that most truely, that Gratian very often erres in citing sayings vnder the names of such Authors, as neuer writ them. And this to be certainely one of those errors of Grati∣an, that which I haue already said of Charles, doth make euident. For Charles would neither himselfe endure, nor suffer others to beare that yoke of ado∣ration of Images, though imposed by the Pope: neither would he beare or indure to heare of that other insupportable yoke of the Popes Temporall Monarchie, but himself imposed his owne yoke of Soueraignty vpon the Pope, permitting him no otherwise to haue Rome, and other Cities in Ita∣ly, but so that the Soueraignty and highest dominion should still remaine in himselfe. So both the Do∣ctrine and Actions of Charles demonstrate that Issachars saying to bee none of his. Scioppius may learne of Burchardusp 1.1257 the whole Chapter; In memoriam, which Gratian falsely ascribed to Charles, was indeed a Decree of the counsellq 1.1258 at Triburia, held in the time of Pope Formosus, 80. yearesr 1.1259 after the death of Charles the great. But whether soeuer of them was Author of that De∣cree, certaine it is, that neither the one nor the o∣ther, can thence bee prooued to bee such a very Asse or right Issachar as Scioppius fancieth. For in that Decree, there is neither mention nor intenti∣on of bearing the yoke of the Popes temporall Monarchie, wherein consisteth the very essence

of A••inity. This yoke Charles as hath bin vndeni∣ably demonstrated, could not endure, but he as I haue shewed imposed vpon the Pope, the yoke of his owne Soueraignty. The counsell of Tribu∣ria also, was so farre from once dreaming of that Papall yoke, that they directly subiect the Pope to the yoke of the Emperours authority & Soue∣raignty, sayings 1.1260 of Arnulphus the Emperour, that God had preferred him, omnibus ecclesiasticae sublimita∣tis ordinibus, aboue all orders of Ecclesiastical sub∣limity, then certainely aboue the Popes. The De∣cree (which was indeede made by the Counsellt 1.1261, and not by Charles) speakes only of Ecclesiasticall Orders, Rites or Ceremonies as their own words declare, Let vs say they, honour the Roman See, that she who is the mother of priestly dignity vnto vs, esse de∣beat Ecclesiasticae magistra rationis, may also bee the Mistres of Ecclesiasticall reason; that is order & discipline. So the true meaning of the Decree is, that such Ecclesiasticall Orders, Rites or Cere∣monies, as that our mother Church imposeth on vs, let vs with patience and humility obserue, though otherwise the yoke of them be scarce to∣lerable. From whence to conclude any acknow∣ledgement, that all, euen Kings and Emperours must beare the yoke of the Popes temporall Mo∣narchie, it beseemed none but only such as Sciop∣pius is, one who is eminent in that his fould of Asses.

Otho the great, besides many other wayes de∣monstrated his Imperiall Soueraignty aboue the Pope, and that also with the approbation of the

whole Church, when he deposedl 1.1262 Iohn the twelfth (though for age but a boy Pope, yet for wicked∣nesse a Monster) and placed Leo the 8. in his See, as before we haue declared.

Pope Hadrian the fourth, had writ a letterm 1.1263 to the Emperour Frederick the first, wherein hee re∣proues the Emperour of insolencie and arrogancy, for setting in his letters, his owne name before the Popes, telling him, that he conferred the imperiall dignities vnto him: Coronaen 1.1264 beneficium tibi contu∣limus, wee haue giuen vnto. you the benefit of the Imperiall Crowne. Heere was a fit occasion for the Emperour to haue acknowledged the Popes right, if he had knowne it. But see how the Emperour answeredo 1.1265 the Pope: Ad illam vo∣cem nefandam, at the hearing of that speech, de∣testable and void of all truth, (that the Empire is conferred by the Pope) not onely our Imperiall Maiesty conceiued iust indignation, but all the Prin∣ces who were present, were so filled with wrath & an∣ger, that they had condemned to death those 2. wick∣ed Priests who brought that message, vnlesse wee had stayed them. Againe, seeing by the election of the Princes, à solo deo regnum & Imperium nostrum sit, our Kingdome and Empire is from God onely, Whosoeuer shall say, that wee receiue the Imperiall Crowne, pro beneficio à domino Papa, as a gift from the Pope is guilty of a lye and of gaine saying, the di∣uine Institution and Doctrine of S. Peter. Againep 1.1266, Seeing Christ both for himselfe and Peter, payed tri∣bute to Caesar, he giueth you an example that you also should doe so. Had Siluester any regality in the time

of Constantine? By Constantines concession, liber∣ty was giuen to the Church, & quicquid regalis, Pa∣patus vester habere dignoscitur, largitione principum obtinet, & whatsoeuer regalitie the Papacie hath, it obteined it by the bounty of Princes. This was the Emperours, and most true iudgement of the Popes Soueraignty.

Frederick the second though he was often excō∣municated and deposed by the Pope, not onelyq 1.1267 contemned all the Popes censures, and sentence, quam iniustam & friuolam esse dicebat, which he called vniust & friuolous, but held his Empire with great honour, the Princes, Nobles, and Imperiall citties ad∣hering to him, vs{que} ad mortē, euen to his dying day, so that neither the Pope nor any other could preuaile against him: yea he so vexed and punished the Pope vt vitae taederet, that he was weary of his life, and wished he had neuer deposed him. The same Empe∣rour saydr 1.1268, that it was a ridiculous thing to subiect the Emperour, of whom to take punishment belongs to God, and not to man, cum temporalem hominem supe∣riorem non habeat, seeing the Emperour hath no mortall man aboue him.

When there was great contention about the right and dignities of the Empire, in the time of Lewes of Bauare, omni ambiguitate mature solerter∣que discussa, all doubts being maturely and exact∣ly discussed by the holy Bishops, the Emperour made and promulged this law, which being set downe by Alberic. de Rosates 1.1269 and Hier. Balbust 1.1270 is most worthy to bee writ in golden letters, as ex∣pressing the true dignity and authoritie of impe∣riall

maiestie: some parcels of which I will here recite. He decrees, that the Emperour is truely made by the election onely of those who haue right to elect without either confirmation or approbation of any o∣ther, quoniam in terris quoad temporalia non habet superiorem, because the Emperour hath none vpon earth his superiour. Againe, Their doctrines are pestiferous and seditious, and their assertions dete∣stable who say, that Imperiall dignity and power is from the Pope, and that the party elected is not truely Emperour nor king vnlesse he be confirmed, approued and crowned by the Pope. We by the consent of the E∣lectors, and other Princes of the Empire do declare, quod imperialis dignitas & potestas est immediate à solo Deo, that Imperiall dignitie and power is im∣mediately from God alone, and that vpon the con∣sent in election, he is forthwith truly Emperour, and hath plenary imperiall power; nor doth he need either approbation, confirmation, or consent of the Pope or a∣ny other, and this we decree by a law for euer to be ob∣serued: and whosoeuer shall presume either to speake or to consent to those who speake against those things thus declared, decreed, and defined by vs, wee decree them to be ipso iure et facto both by law and actual∣ly depriued of all lands, iurisdictions, priuiledges and immunities which they hold of the Empire; and fur∣ther to haue incurred, and to be subiect to all the pu∣nishments which are due vnto Traytors.

Hereunto may bee ioyned that of Guntharus the next electedu 1.1271 Emperour to this Lewes, who renewed and ratified this Edict of Lewes, decree∣ing x 1.1272 by the like consent of the Imperiall states,

that the Pope, secundum omnia iura diuina ac huma∣na subesse debet imperio, ought to be subiect to the Emperours according to the lawes both of God and man, and that the Emperour nec illi nec vlli per∣sonae in temporalibus subiectus est, is subiect neither to the Pope nor to any other person in tempo∣rall matters. He decreed also, that whosouer would presume either to speake or doe ought▪ or to consent to any who did speake or doe against this their de∣cree, such should bee accounted rebels to the Emperor and Empire, and bee depriued ipso iure et facto of all benefite and dignity which they hould of the Empire, and should also bee subiect to all the punishments due vnto Traytors.

Many like examples and decrees of other most worthy and renowned Emperours might be ad∣ded, but these few which I haue mentioned are so pregnant that I will now end this whole trea∣tise with these so ample and euident demonstra∣tions both of the Popes subiection to Emperors, and of the Emperors Soueraignty aboue the Pope, by either of which their Babylo∣nish Monarchy doth of it selfe fall to the ground.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Nempe per Edictum Con∣stant.
• b 1.2

  Grrgorius 7 in sua ex••crati∣onis Henrici Imperatoris, confirmatione, quae recitatur a Platina in vita Greg. 7. ja. 178
• c 1.3

  Leo 9. Epist. 1. cap. 13.
• d 1.4

  Nobis diui∣nitus, & hu∣manitus conces∣sam gloriam ibid. ap. 39.
• e 1.5

  Nich. 2. in Epist. ad. Medi∣••lanens. dist. 22 ca. Omnes sed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fals••as∣cribitur Ni••ho∣lao 1. qui longe ante P••t••um Dam••anum (is huius Nicholai legatus lici tur) obierat.
• f 1.6

  L••b 1. Sacr. Cerem. sect 7. ••ol 84. & 85.
• g 1.7

  Paral. Abb. Vsperg ad anni•• 129 ••. pag. 343 & seq.
• * 1.8

  Alu. Pel••g. lib. 1. de plancti. Eccl cap 13.
• h 1.9

  Aug Triump. de potest. Eccle••. q. 36. ••••t. 3.
• i 1.10

  Thom. Bozius lib. 1 de Iure statu•• &c. ca. 1•• sect. Ob hae••.
• h 1.11

  Ibid. sect. Sic itaque.
• i 1.12

  Rod. Sanc. li. de orig. ac dif∣fer. princ. part 1 & cit. a Carer. lib. 2. de potest. Rom pontif. cap. 9. sect. Sequitur
• k 1.13

  Rad. Cupers Com. ad Cap. Oportebat. dist. 79. pa. 253. nu. 23.
• l 1.14

  Ibid. pa. 257 nu. 64.
• m 1.15

  Anton. in Summa, par. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 22. ca 5. sect 15.
• n 1.16

  Lel. Zecch. in Tract. Theolog. pa. 81.
• o 1.17

  ••••. Bos. lib. 1 de temp. Eccl Mona••c. cap. 3. pag 52.
• p 1.18

  Idem lib. 5. ca. 18. pa. 807.
• q 1.19

  Th Boz. praef. ad Clement. 8.
• r 1.20

  Baron. an. 57. ••u. 28.
• s 1.21

  Aquin. in 2. Senten. dist. 4 4 q. 9. Art. 2. & citatur a Tho. Boz. l. 1. de Iu∣re status c. 13 sect. Primam.
• t 1.22

  Bel. l. 5. de Pont. Rom. c. 1. sect. Restat.
• u 1.23

  Habere sum∣mam lai••am potestatem &c. Mart p. 1. c. 18 num. 1.
• x 1.24

  Ibid. nu. 5.
• y 1.25

  Ibid. ca. 18. per totum
• z 1.26

  Idē c. 22. ••. 1.
• a 1.27

  Henr. Gand. quodl. 6. q. 23.
• b 1.28

  Alex. Carer. l••b. 2. c. 9. num. 1. & lib. eod. c. 13. num. 7.
• c 1.29

  Ibid, c. 16. n. 11.
• d 1.30

  Gasp. Sciop. in Ecclesiast. c 36 p. 122.
• e 1.31

  Ipse vtrum∣que (postquam in coelum as∣cendit) per E∣piscopos ex••rcet, imprimis autem per S Petrum cui soli dixit, pasce oues meas idem lib. eod. c. 38 p. 126.
• f 1.32

  Esse autem virgam nihil aliud quam saecularem siue coactiuā pote∣statē, ex Is. 14. discimus. ibib.
• g 1.33

  Ecclesia simi∣lis Vitulo, siue ••oui trituranti ibid. c. 38. p. •• 29. in marg.
• h 1.34

  Aduerten∣dum quod Ec∣clesiae saecularis potestas tribu∣atur, per cornu significata, sed in capite residet postquaem scili∣cet iam adole∣uit, ibid. p. 129.
• i 1.35

  Cornua cum ••tatis maturit••te habiturus sit. Vt ea postquam Ecclesia adoleuisset vteretur. Ibid.
• a 1.36

  Rod. Sant. l. de Orig. ac differ. princip. & cit. a Carer, l. 2. c. 9. n. 13.
• b 1.37

  Iure diuino Papam vtram que potestatem habere demon∣stratur. Rad. Cup. Comment. ad Cap. oporte bat. distinct. 79 p 48. num. 1.
• * 1.38

  Ibid. p. 46. in Sumar. nu. 9.
• c 1.39

  Thom Boz. l. 5. de Iure sta∣tus c. 10. §. Io∣hannes.
• d 1.40

  Mart. par. 1. c. 18. nu. 25.
• e 1.41

  Idem c. 19 〈◊〉〈◊〉 5. & nu. 14.
• f 1.42

  Alex. Carer. l. 2. c. 3. nu. 16.
• g 1.43

  Mar. Pol. Chron. An. 1301.
• a 1.44

  Aduersus im∣pios politicos, et huius temporis haereticos. tit. l.
• b 1.45

  Confutatur opinio Bellarm. Car. lib 3. c. 5, 6 7. & 8.
• c 1.46

  Bellarminus satisfacere non potuit ambiti∣oni Sixti 5. Itaque parum ab fui•• quin omnia illius Doctoris opera ab••leret. Guil. Barc. l. de potest. Papae c. 13. & delere atque extinguere in animo habuit. ibid. ca. 40.
• d 1.47

  Bel l. 5. de Pōt. Ro. c. 6. et seq.
• e 1.48

  Carer. lib. 2. c. 10. nu. 1.
• f 1.49

  Couaer. part. 2. Relect sect. 9. nu. 6 p. 505.
• g 1.50

  Bar an. 1053 num. 14.
• x 1.51

  Carer. l. 2. c. 12. nu. 3 4▪ 5.
• y 1.52

  Car. l. ••od. c. 14. nu. 14.
• z 1.53

  Ibid. nu. 20.
• a 1.54

  Cap. e••d. n. 16
• b 1.55

  Ex quibus concluditur pontificem esse orbis virum Idem c. 15. n. 10.
• c 1.56

  Mart 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 19. nu. 9.
• d 1.57

  Aug. Trium. de potest. eccl. q. 1. art. 1.
• e 1.58

  Ibid.
• f 1.59

  Alv. Pelag. l. 1. de Pla••••ct. eccl. c. 13.
• g 1.60

  Th. Boz. l. 2. de iure stat c. 19. § Ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• e 1.61

  Cap. Solitae, Extrav. de Maior & Obed.
• f 1.62

  Ioh. Clav. com. in Ioh. de Sa∣••robos. pa. 189.
• g 1.63

  Glossan. Cap. Solitae, de Ma∣ior & Obed.
• h 1.64

  Car. lib. 2. c. 12. nu. 5.
• i 1.65

  Th. Wald. Doct fid to. 1. l. 2. ar. 3. c. 74.
• k 1.66

  Stanist. Orich. in Chimaera. p. 97.
• l 1.67

  Quantum Deus praestat sacerdoti, tan∣tum sacerdos praes¦at regi. ibid.
• m 1.68

  Aug. Steuch. l. de donat. Con∣stant p. 187.
• n 1.69

  Mart. par. 1. c. 19 nu. 7.
• o 1.70

  Rad. Cupers com. ad cap. O∣portebat. p. 43. nu. 39.
• p 1.71

  Aug. Triump. in princ. sum∣mae de potest. Eccles.
• q 1.72

  Orat. Steph. Patrac. in Conc. Later. sub Leone 10. Sess. 10. p. 624.
• r 1.73

  Rad. Cup l. ci∣tat. p. 3. nu. 7.
• s 1.74

  Papa totaem ecclesiam signi∣ficat. id. p. 125. num. 43. in Summ••r.
• t 1.75

  Mart. part. 1. ca. 15. nu. 14.
• u 1.76

  Tho Boz. l. 3. de iure Stat. c. 5. sect. Quin audet.
• x 1.77

  Car. si. 2▪ ca. 21. nu. 5. & ca. 16 nu. 31.
• y 1.78

  Ibid. ca. 21. ••u. 7.
• z 1.79

  Mart lib. in. ca. 25. n. 20.
• a 1.80

  Idem cap. 29 nu. 13. 14.
• b 1.81

  Ibid▪ nu. 15.
• * 1.82

  Gas. Sciop in Eccles ca. 51. pa. 168. 169.
• c 1.83

  Idem ca. 52. pa. 17••.
• d 1.84

  Munst. Cosm. li. 2. pa. 57.
• e 1.85

  Greg. 7. lib. 4. Epist. 28. Regi∣bus caeterisqu•••• principibus Hispaniae.
• f 1.86

  Greg. 7. li. 1. Epist. 8.
• g 1.87

  Steuch. li. de don. Const. pag. 193.
• h 1.88

  Steuch. ibid.
• i 1.89

  Bonif. 8. lit••rae apud Carer. li. 2 ca. 3. nu. 16.
• k 1.90

  Alexand. 2. epist. pars quae id asseritur ex∣tat apud Baron. an. 1068. nu. 1.
• l 1.91

  Bonif. verba citantur a Pol. Virg. hist. li. 17. et a Marta lib. cit. ca. 26. nu. 60.
• m 1.92

  Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 200.
• n 1.93

  Mart. lib. cit. ca. 26. nu. 6.
• o 1.94

  Bar. tract de Regno Siciliae to n. 11. Annal. an. 1097. nu. 18 & deinceps.
• p 1.95

  Greg. 7 li. 2 epist. 13. ad Sa∣lomonem regem Hungariae.
• q 1.96

  Verba citan∣tur a Steuch. li. de do••. Const. pa. 191.
• r 1.97

  Steuch. li. cit. ••ag. 190. & Greg. 7. idem declarat, lib. 2. Epist. 74.
• s 1.98

  Steuc••. li. cit. pa. 189.
• t 1.99

  Steuch. ibid. pa. 195.
• d 1.100

  Vt Marta s••••▪
• e 1.101

  Vt Carer. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• f 1.102

  Hadr. 4. epist. cita••ur apud Auent. l. 6. p. 506.
• g 1.103

  Lael. Zech. tract. de Rom. Pontif p. 82.
• h 1.104

  Ibid. p. 83.
• i 1.105

  Mart. lib. cit. c. 18. nu. 11. & 12.
• k 1.106

  Idem c. 20. n. 4▪
• * 1.107

  Idem▪ c. 25. nu. 16. Papa Imperatorent confirmat iu∣rantem sibi fidelitatem et homagium.
• l 1.108

  Distinct. 63. c. Tibi domino.
• m 1.109

  Lib. 1. Sacr. Cerem. sect. 5. fol 48.
• n 1.110

  Cap. Romani in Clement. tit. de Iureiura••••∣do. Declaramus illa iur amen∣ta fidelitatis existere, & censeri debere.
• o 1.111

  Forma iura∣menti Lotharii extat apud Bar. an. 1133. nu. 2.
• p 1.112

  Post homo ••it Papae, etc. Ver∣sus extant apud Radevic. lib. 1. de gest. Frideri ••••i 1. c. 10. & Sigon. lib. 11. de Regno Ita••. an. 1133.
• a 1.113

  Episcopis, Abba••ibus, & vassis nostris dicimus, Capit. Carol. magni li. 2. cap 9 & de vassis dominicis qui intra casā seruiunt, ibid. li. 3. ca. 73 & Anima vestra de corpore nuda ac desolata sine solatio, et comi∣tatu vassorum exibit. in capit. missis ab Episc. Rhem. ad Ludo∣ui••••̄. V••ss•• a Saxonibus La•••••• dicti. ait Glossa∣ri••m in capitu. Aliter, a vas vasis, vassal. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deducit Mart. par. 4. ca. 188▪ nu. ••.
• b 1.114

  Mart. li. cit. part. 1. cap. 18. nu. 2••.
• c 1.115

  Sig. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. an. 1133.
• d 1.116

  Steu••. li. cit. pag. 193.
• e 1.117

  Mart. li. cit. ca. 26. nu. 43. 44.
• f 1.118

  Maximas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ait Marta, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bar. an. 10••7. nu. 106. 〈…〉〈…〉
• g 1.119

  Mart. ca. 26. nu. 53.
• h 1.120

  Ibid nu. 54.
• i 1.121

  Ibid. nu. 55.
• k 1.122

  Ibid. nu. 25. 26. 27.
• l 1.123

  Ibid. nu. 29.
• m 1.124

  Ibid. nu. 31 & 34.
• n 1.125

  Ibid. nu. 35.
• o 1.126

  Verba Bonif. citantur a Steu. li. cit. pa. 198.
• p 1.127

  Mart. lib. cit. ca. 28. nu. 1.
• q 1.128

  Ibid. nu▪ 11 & 23▪
• r 1.129

  Steuch. li. ci••. pa. 189.
• s 1.130

  Dicendum est ••••mibus Gaellis & per veram obedientiam praecipiendum, vt vnaquae{que} demus, annu a••tim vnum sal∣tim denarium seluat B. Petr•• Greg. 7. lib. 8▪ Epist. 23:
• t 1.131

  Stanis. Chri∣stan. in Exam. Cathol. fol. 33
• u 1.132

  Christ. ibid.
• x 1.133

  Bellar. Apol. pro Tort. cap. 3. sect Extat. Be∣can. Cont. Angl. q. 9. nu. 1. 2. et seq. Bar. a. 1173 nu. 9. 10.
• y 1.134

  Christan. f 3•• & seq. & Bell. Apol. pro Tort •• c 4. sect. Extat. Mart. lib. cit. c. 26. nu. 39
• z 1.135

  Receptio ••o∣rundem regno∣rum in feuaū▪ ita vt rex tan∣quam secun••a∣••us dominus, •• Rom eccl▪ illa se habere agnos∣cat. et in signū subiectionis fidelitatē et homag•••• praestare debent. nec no•• in annos singulo•• 1000. marcas eidē numerare. Bell▪ et Becan. loc. cit.
• a 1.136

  Regnū suū Angl. et Hibern. Rom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cōcessit, recipiens illud a nobis in feudū sub am••••o censu 1000 marcarū. Innoc. 3. in epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnes fideles; quae extat apud Math. Paris. pa. 356. regnū Angl. est suū propriū &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Innoc ibid. pa. 381.
• b 1.137

  Cuius bulla authentica est in Vaticano. Mart ca. 26. nu. 4
• c 1.138

  Directū do∣mi••••ū habet Eccl. in regnum Angl. et Hiber∣niae. Bell. loc. cit.
• d 1.139

  Se summo pontifici vasal∣los constitue••ūt et tributarios Mart. loc. cit.
• e 1.140

  Innoc. 3 ve••∣ba apud Math. Paris. in Ioh. p. 379 & 381.
• f 1.141

  Alexandri verba citantur •• Bar▪ an 1062 nu 109
• g 1.142

  Steuch. li. cit. pa. 191.
• h 1.143

  Sub nomine census misistis &c. Greg. 7. li. 2. Epist. 7.
• i 1.144

  Steuch. li. cit. pa. 194.
• k 1.145

  Mart ca. 26. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 49. 50.
• l 1.146

  Mart. ca. 26. nu. 3. vbi 27. regna esse de∣scripta in regi∣stro curiae Ro∣manae ait.
• m 1.147

  ••is vti sub∣iectis impera∣bant. Steuch. li. cit. pa. 183.
• n 1.148

  Carer. li. 2. c. 18. nu. ••.
• o 1.149

  Mart. li. cit. ca. 18. nu. 19.
• p 1.150

  Idē c. 27. n. 1
• q 1.151

  Idem ca. 18. nu. 11. in Sum∣mar.
• r 1.152

  Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 189.
• s 1.153

  De quibu•••• a∣gi•• Carer. lib. 2. ca. 19. per totū.
• t 1.154

  Mart. par. 1. ca. 29. nu. 12. et ••. 25. n•• 6. et 22
• u 1.155

  Car. li. 2. c. 19 nu. 26.
• x 1.156

  T. Bozius lib. 3. de iure stat. c. 4. sect. Sed &.
• * 1.157

  Carer. et Tho. Boz. locis citatis
• y 1.158

  Carer. et Tho. Boz. loc. cit.
• z 1.159

  Idem Car. c. 21. nu. 14. et T. Boz. loc cit. sect. Neque id▪
• * 1.160

  Gas. Sciop. in Eccles ca. 141. p. 512.
• a 1.161

  Mart. lib. cit. cap. 8. nu. 19▪
• b 1.162

  Durand Ra∣tional. lib. 2. c. 8. nu. 6.
• c 1.163

  Gloss. in Cap. Valentinianus Dist. 63 & Boe••. Epo. tract. de Regn. vel Iure princ. nu. 48. &. 51.
• d 1.164

  Stapham equi papalis tenere debet Impera∣tor et deinde ducere equum perfranum. Mart. lib. cit. ca. 18. nu. 19. et sacr. Cerem. lib. 1. sect. 5. p. 61.
• e 1.165

  Pipinus vice stratoris iuxta pa••ae sellam properauit. Fredericus Hadriano 3. officium stra∣toris exhibui•• Steuch. lib. cit. pa 135.
• f 1.166

  Lib. 1. Sa••. Cer. sect. 2. p. 3••
• g 1.167

  Ibid.
• a 1.168

  Ibid. p. 43.
• b 1.169

  Ibid. p. 45.
• c 1.170

  Ibid tit. 2. pa. 28. & 29.
• d 1.171

  Henricus, soris deposito cultu regio, nu∣dis pedibus, le∣iunus a m••••e vsque ad ve∣sperum persta. ••attriduo. Lamb Scaef••••ab. pa. 249.
• e 1.172

  Caernem suam ••udam disci¦plinae virga∣••um supponens a singulis viris religiosis quo∣rum multitu∣do magna con∣uenerat ictus ternos vel qu••∣ternos excepit. Matth. Paris. in Hen. 2. pa. 174.
• f 1.173

  Papa Impera∣toris ••ollum pede compri∣mens ait, Scrip∣tum est, super aspidem & basiliscum am∣bulabis. Nauc. ad an. 1177.
• g 1.174

  Becanus ••ontrou. Aug. q. 3 nu. 14. 15. & 16.
• h 1.175

  Per Canes intelliguntur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reges & Imperatores. Ibid. nu. 15.
• a 1.176

  Ecclesia est Mandra, siue Grex▪ aut mul∣titudo iumen∣torum▪ siue A∣sinorum, cli∣tellariorum, aut Sagmario. rum Gasp. Sciop. in praef. ad Imper. in summae Cap. 147.
• b 1.177

  Cum nos Christiani si∣mus dei ••••men∣ta siue pecora subiugalia, e∣qui, muli. siue Asini Cl••tella∣ri••, dossuarij, sarcinarij, Idem in Eccles. c. 147. p. 534.
• c 1.178

  Ibid. in Marg.
• d 1.179

  Ibid.
• e 1.180

  Illi enim sunt Homines, siue Agasones, Mu∣liones, Iuga••ij: Illinos ••ranat, illi loao aelli∣gant, nos a∣gunt, nos s••i∣mulant, n••bis iugum impo∣num ibid. pag. 534.
• f 1.181

  Ibid p. 535.
• a 1.182

  Bonus & in∣telligens Asi∣nus audit con∣silia et praecep∣ta sui Mulio∣nis. ibid. p. 536.
• b 1.183

  Ibid. in Marg.
• c 1.184

  Tum caeteros Asinos, qui sonitum tin∣tinnabuli de collo vestro pendontis audi∣unt, viam in∣gredi faciatis. Ibid.
• d 1.185

  Ibid. p. 536. 537.
• a 1.186

  Psal. 24: 1.
• b 1.187

  Iohn 10. 30
• c 1.188

  Math. 28. 28
• d 1.189

  Heb. 1. 2.
• e 1.190

  Ioh. 13. 3.
• f 1.191

  Ioh. 17. 10.
• g 1.192

  Daniel 2. 37
• h 1.193

  Mat▪ 22. 21.
• i 1.194

  Non fit ali∣quid, nisi Om∣nipotens fieri velit, vel sinen∣do vt fiat, vel ipse faciendo. Aug. Enchyr. ca. 95. Nec v∣tique nolens sinit, sed vo∣lens. Ibid. ca. 100.
• k 1.195

  Psal. 2. 6.
• l 1.196

  Zach. 9. 9.
• m 1.197

  Ier. 23. 5.
• n 1.198

  Ezec. 37. 22
• o 1.199

  Matt. 6. 33.
• p 1.200

  Luk. 11. 20.
• q 1.201

  Luc. 17. 21.
• r 1.202

  Mat. 13. 24.
• s 1.203

  Ibid. v. 31.
• t 1.204

  Ibid. v. 33.
• u 1.205

  Luk. 23. 42.
• x 1.206

  Luk 12. 32.
• y 1.207

  Luc. 13. 29.
• z 1.208

  1 Cor. 6. 9.
• a 1.209

  2 Pet. 1. 11.
• b 1.210

  Rom. 8. 17.
• c 1.211

  2 Tim. 4. 8.
• * 1.212

  Gal. 5. 22. & 1 Cor. 12. 11.
• d 1.213

  Psal. 84. 11.
• e 1.214

  1 Pet. 1. 18. 19.
• f 1.215

  Eph. 1. 4.
• f 1.216

  Ioh. 18. 36.
• g 1.217

  Ioh. 6. 15.
• h 1.218

  Luc. 12. 13.
• i 1.219

  Math. 17. 24.
• k 1.220

  Sub Caesare nobiscum de∣scribi voluit. Cyril. lib. 6. cont. Iulian. p. 55. Romano censu statim ascriptus, vt natus est. Or••∣sius. lib. 6. ca: 22. dicendus vtique ciuis Romanus, cen∣sus professione Romani. ibid.
• l 1.221

  Math. 17. 26
• m 1.222

  Caiet. Com. in 17. Math.
• n 1.223

  Luc. Burg. in eund. loc.
• o 1.224

  Hier. com. in 17. Math.
• p 1.225

  Regnum Chri∣sti tollit omnia alia Regna. Gas. Sciop. Ec∣cles. c. 46. p. 151.
• q 1.226

  Romani prae∣sidis po••estatem Christus super se fatetur fuis∣se caelitus or∣dinatam, Bern. epist. 42 in fine.
• r 1.227

  Audite regnae omnia, non im∣pedio domina∣tionem v strā. Aug. tract. 115 in Ioh.
• s 1.228

  Principatus Christi munda∣nus non est. Cyril. lib. 12. in Ioh. ca. 10.
• t 1.229

  Quod regna∣uit Christus non est contra Prophetiam (Ier. 22. 30.) non enim sacu∣lari honorereg∣nauit. Amb. l. 3. in Luc. p. 44.
• u 1.230

  Regnum Christi non erit terrenum et breue, sed coeleste & per∣petuū Hier. in c. 22. Ier. v. 30
• x 1.231

  Regnum su∣um neque hu∣manū ne{que} ca∣ducū esse demonstrat. &, non humanū, sed longe maius at praestantius imperiū Chrys. hem. 82. in Ioh.
• t 1.232

  Christus posi∣tus est rex non super illum ter∣renae ciuitatis montem, sed e∣ius quae est in coelis, Hilar. in Psal 2. ya. 353
• u 1.233

  Carnaliter non est imple∣tum in saluato∣re, &c. Epiph. haer. 29.
• x 1.234

  Egesip. apud. Euseb. l. 3. c. 17
• y 1.235

  Sedes Dauid per diuinum saluatoris no∣stri regnum, erectum est. Euseb. lib. 7. de Demonst. Euang.
• z 1.236

  Regnabit in aeternum, non dixit in acqui∣sitione gloriae, Gazarumque terrenarū, &c. Bed••n c. 1. Luc.
• a 1.237

  Dabit ei deus sedem Dauid, non tempora∣lem sed aeternā, non terrenā sed coelestem. Bern. homil 4. super, Missus est. Lu. 1.
• b 1.238

  B••l. l. 5. de Pont. Rom. c. i. 4. sect. Superest.
• c 1.239

  Ibid. §▪ Quod de nique.
• d 1.240

  Ibid. §. Re∣spondent.
• e 1.241

  Ibid. sect. C••••∣firmatur.
• f 1.242

  Recognit. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. p. 33.
• g 1.243

  Lib. eod. Re∣cog. pa. 35
• h 1.244

  Cor. Ians. Concord. Euan. c. 3. sect. Dabit.
• * 1.245

  Sededit super solum Dauid & super regnū eius, vt rex sae∣cularis, ait Sci∣op. in suo eccles. ca. 36. p. 124.
• i 1.246

  Ad. Sasb. com∣ment. in ca. 9. Isai.
• k 1.247

  Tho. Wald. Post. fidei, to. 1. l. 2. Art. 3. c. 77
• l 1.248

  Ex Hymno Sedulij, quem cot•• ecclesiae publice canit Bell. lib. 5. de Rom pont. cap. 3
• m 1.249

  Loco cit.
• n 1.250

  Gas. Sciop. in Eccl. c. 46. p. 151 in marg.
• o 1.251

  Christus le∣gatos constituit qui suo loco or∣bis haereditatem ••deant. Idem c. 36. p. 125. &, Papa Romanus est velut Pro∣rex. li. eod. c. 55 p. 179. &, Chri¦stus ipse posses∣sionē non capit, sed paulatim per suos vicari et ibid. cap. 36. pa. 125.
• p 1.252

  Titulo Re∣dēptionis Chri∣stus omnia re∣gna & imperia euacuat, & cessare facit. idem li eodem. ca. 36. pa. 123.
• q 1.253

  Lib. eod. c. 46 pa. 151.
• r 1.254

  Christus vt ho∣mo titulo emp∣tionis totius mundi dominus esse coepit. Sciop•• lib. cit. ca. 41. pa. 139. Chri∣stus morte sua emit omnia, eti∣am infidelium regna, et, ••mnia suo sanguine emit Christus. Sciop. lib. eod c. 36 pa 123. &, Christus domi∣nus omnium ratione Emptio∣nis, ib. pa. 122. &, morte sua emit omnia to∣tius orbis regna ca. 141 pa. 509
• s 1.255

  Christus per suos vicarios possessionem ca∣pit terrae, siue terrenorum & externorum bo∣norum lib. eod ca. 36. pa. 125.
• t 1.256

  Coloss. 2. 14.
• u 1.257

  Sciop. li. cit. ca. 36. p. 122. 123.
• x 1.258

  Papa Prorex. ibid. c. 55. p. 179.
• y 1.259

  Loc. cit. ca. 36. p. 125.
• z 1.260

  Sui sanguinis effusione, totius mundi imperium a diabolo, cui Adam illud per peccatum vendiderat, redemit. Idem. lib. eodem c. 41 p. 137.
• a 1.261

  Papa non h••∣bet iurisdictio∣nem coactiuam maiorem quam habuerit Chri∣stus cuius est vicarius. Oc∣cam. li. 6. part. 1. cap. 3.
• b 1.262

  Bell. lib. 5. de Rom Pont. c. 4. sect. superest.
• c 1.263

  Ioh. 20. 21.
• d 1.264

  Ipsi dicun∣tur hoc petijsse Mar. 10. 35. sed illam petiti∣onem ipsorum mater Christo proposuit, ideo ipsa dicitur pro eis hoc petijsse Math. 20. 20.
• e 1.265

  Bern. li. 2. de Cons. ad. Eug.
• f 1.266

  Regnū Chri∣sti huius vitae ac saeculare fore opinabantur, Chrys. in cap. 20 Math. Hom. 66
• g 1.267

  Constantinus magnus sanxit vt cuiuis liberū esset in ciuili causa a praetore aut quouis alio saeculari iudice ad Episcopum appellare. Ad∣ditque; Omnes ita{que} caus•• quae vel praetorio iu∣re vel ciuilitractantur, Episcoporum sententijs terminatae perpetuo stabilitatis iure firmantur nec licebit vlterius retractare negotium quod episcoporum sententia deciderit. Hoc perpetua lege firmamus. Lex illa tota extat leg. 1. De Episcopali iudicio Cod. Theod.
• h 1.268

  Inter hos Augustinus, qui sic de se ait. Homines quidem causas suas saeculares apud nos ••nire cupientes, sanctos nos appellant. Agamus aliquando negotium salutis nostrae & ipsorū non de auro, non de argento, non de fundis & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidie submisso capite salutamur, Aug. Epist. 147. & Non permittor ad quod volo, vacare ante meridiem, post meridiem occupationibus hominum ten••or. Epist. 110. &, Testor deum, multo mallē per singulos dies aliquid manibus operari, quam tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alie∣narum pati de negotiis saecularibus, vel iudicando dirimendis, vel interueniendo praecidendis Aug. lib. de oper. monach. ca. 29. Idem{que} ab aliis Episcopis factitatum, non est dubiū, cum lex illa Constantini omnibus episcopis idem ius iudicandi causas saeculares contulisset.
• i 1.269

  Vt in Mose, Eli, Samuele, alijsque.
• k 1.270

  Bel. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 10. sect. Dico secundo. Cor. Iansen. in Con∣cord. Euang. ca. 104. alijque.
• l 1.271

  Conc. Trident. sess. 4 sect. In∣super.
• m 1.272

  Nam, eorū, legitur pro, earum.
• * 1.273

  Luk. 22. 25.
• n 1.274

  Bern. lib. 2. de consid. ad Eugen.
• o 1.275

  Ant. Rossel. Monarch. part. 1. c. 70. p. 298.
• p 1.276

  Lib. ••od. c. 38.
• q 1.277

  Math. 22. 21
• r 1.278

  Rom, 13. 1. 5
• s 1.279

  Ver. 4.
• t 1.280

  Ver. 6.
• u 1.281

  Math. 17. 24.
• x 1.282

  Aug. epist. 54.
• y 1.283

  Basil. Constit. exercit. ca. 22.
• z 1.284

  Chrys. inca. 13. ad Rom. hom▪ 23.
• a 1.285

  Reddite timo∣rem, Iemperia∣lem honorem dicit. ibid.
• b 1.286

  Quod atti∣ne•• ad honores Regum vel Imperatorum satis praescrip∣tum habemus in omni obse∣quio esse nos o∣portere, secun∣dum Apostoli praec••ptum. Tert. lib. de Ido∣lat. ca. 15.
• c 1.287

  Principes hos Reges dicit. Ambr. com. in cap. 13. ad Rom.
• d 1.288

  Ben. Peter▪ com in ca. 13. ad Rom. di∣sput. 1.
• e 1.289

  Baron. an. 58. ••u 46. Quem ••it fuisse Petri exquo Episco∣pus Romanus esse coepit, amūe 14. & eodem tempore ait Paulum forte priuatas literas ad Petrum (Romae agen∣tem) mifisse. ibid. nu. 52▪
• f 1.290

  Ber. Epist. 42.
• g 1.291

  Eo tempore accusabantur Christiani sedi∣tionis & rebel∣lionis. Bel. lib. 2 de Pont. Rom. ca. 29. sect. Quod. Quin etiam autho∣re Chrysosto∣mo, sparso ru∣more percrebu∣erat, Apostol•••• & praedica••••∣res Euang••••u rerum esse No∣uatores, atque ad euertendas leges ciuiles omnia dicere & facere. P••∣rer. in cap. 13. ad Rom. disp. 1.
• h 1.292

  Calummato∣res vocat Bell. eos qui haec obijciebant. & Per. ait, Aposto∣los laborasse vt hoc scan∣dalum auser∣rent. loc. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• i 1.293

  Chrys. in cap. 13. ad Rom. in ••••tio.
• k 1.294

  Gas. Sciop. ca. 46. Regnum Christi ••ollit omnia alia reg∣na. Quod de Papali regno acceptum, ve∣rissime dicitur.
• l 1.295

  2 Cor. 10. 4.
• m 1.296

  Act. 13. 11
• n 1.297

  Act. 5. 5. 10
• o 1.298

  Act. 20. 27
• a 1.299

  Bell. lib. 5. d•• Rom. Pont. ca. 7 sect. Probatur▪
• b 1.300

  Ibid. sect. Tertia.
• c 1.301

  Tertull. Apo∣loget cap. 37.
• d 1.302

  A treatise of Councels which be ge∣nerall and lawfull
• e 1.303

  Concil C••••∣stant. 4. sub Hadr. 2. an. 869. Act. 1.
• f 1.304

  Recte impera∣tores nostri mo∣nuere, dicunt le∣gati Act. e••de••▪
• g 1.305

  Edit. Biniana Colon. Agrip. ••n. 1606.
• * 1.306

  Ab anno 1. ad 100.
• i 1.307

  Christus Math. 22. 21
• k 1.308

  Petrus Epist. 1. c. 2. 17.
• l 1.309

  Paulus Rom. 13. 1.
• m 1.310

  Ignatius Epist ad Smir••.
• n 1.311

  Baron. An. 57 nu. 55. & Bell. li••de eccl. scrip. in Ignatio.
• * 1.312

  Iosep. Antiq. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 17. ca. 3.
• p 1.313

  Christiani primis••culi.
• * 1.314

  Ab an. 100. ad 200.
• q 1.315

  Iust. Mart. orat ad An••o∣••••num p. 128.
• r 1.316

  Ireneus. eius ve ba citantur a Ioh. L••••go in ••uis rotis ad Iust Mart orat ad Anton p. 117.
• s 1.317

  Egesippus apud Euseb. li. 3. Hist. ca. 17.
• t 1.318

  Tertullian in Apologet. ••ap. 30,
• x 1.319

  Idem lib. ad Scap ca. 2.
• * 1.320

  Ab An. 200 ad 300.
• y 1.321

  Clemens Alex lib. 3. Paedag pa. 30••
• a 1.322

  Origen. com. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 9. in haec verba, Vis non timere potestatem.
• b 1.323

  Cyprian. de simpli••. prael. siue de vnitate eccles. ••a. 297.
• c 1.324

  Victorinus Com. in Apo∣cal.
• d 1.325

  Existimat Victor. Nero∣nem nondum mortuum, ac futurum ve∣rum Antichri∣stum Not. ad. Vict in 3 edit▪ B. B. Pat. in margine.
• * 1.326

  Ab An. 300 ad 400.
• f 1.327

  Eusebius lib. 2. de vit. Const ca. 19.
• g 1.328

  Athanasius Apol. ad Con∣s••••ntium p. 156.
• h 1.329

  Hilarius. Can. 23 in Math. O ple∣nam miraculi responsionem.
• i 1.330

  Idem in Psal. 2.
• k 1.331

  Greg. Nazi∣anz. Orat. 25. p. 81.
• l 1.332

  Greg. Nissen. lib. de Beatitud. inillud, Beati qui persequ••∣tionem patiu••∣tur.
• n 1.333

  Cyril Hi••∣ros. Catech. ••5.
• o 1.334

  Epiphanius h••••r. 29.
• p 1.335

  Ambro∣sius. Orat. de obitu Theod.
• q 1.336

  Idem. Apol. Dauid, lib. 1. ca. 10. & ca. 4.
• r 1.337

  Ruffinus in expos. Symb. pa. 176. & 206
• * 1.338

  Hieronimus in Epita. Nepot. ad Heliod. tom. 1. pa. 26.
• s 1.339

  Prudentius peristeph. hym∣••o 2.
• * 1.340

  Ab An. 400. ad 500.
• t 1.341

  Chrysostom Homil. 2. ad pop. Ant.
• u 1.342

  Optatus lib. 3. Cont. Par∣men pa. 85.
• b 1.343

  Augustine lib. 5. de ciuit▪ Dei ca. 21.
• c 1.344

  Prosper lib▪ Epigr••••u. 34.
• d 1.345

  Idem lib. 2▪ de vocat. gen∣tium. ca. 16.
• e 1.346

  Orosius lib. 2. ca. 1.
• f 1.347

  Sulpitius lib▪ 2. sacrae histor.
• g 1.348

  Cyrillus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lex. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fide ad Theod. in princip••••.
• k 1.349

  Theodoret com. in Daniel. ca. 2. Orat. 2.)
• l 1.350

  ••lem in cap. 1••. ad Rom.
• m 1.351

  Theodulus com. in ca. 13. ad Rom.
• n 1.352

  Vincentius Lyrin. in Com∣mon. ca. 42. 43.
• o 1.353

  Bel. lib. 2. de Rom, Pont ca. 16 § Octauus.
• h 1.354

  Cyril. l••c. cit.
• i 1.355

  Conc. Ephes. in Epist Syno∣dali, to. 4 Act, Ephes. conc. ca. 22.
• k 1.356

  Socrates lib. 7, ca. 11.
• l 1.357

  Leo 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• m 1.358

  Idem Epist. 43. 49
• n 1.359

  Idem Epist. 9
• o 1.360

  Idem Epist. 24.
• p 1.361

  Idem Epist. 17. &. 25.
• q 1.362

  Gelasius 1. Epist. 8.
• r 1.363

  Idem, in tom. Anathem. a∣pud. Bin. to. 2. pa. 254.
• * 1.364

  Ab an. 500 ad 600.
• a 1.365

  Concil. Turonense 2. celeb. sub Ioh. 3 can. 25.
• b 1.366

  Synodus Africana habi∣ta an. 23. Iusti∣niani apud Vict. Tununers. an. 10. post. Cons. Basilij.
• c 1.367

  Bar. an. 547 nu. 30.
• d 1.368

  Bar. an. 50▪ nu. 32.
• e 1.369

  Synodus Romana 3. tempore Syma∣chi. Cum regia pracepisses au∣thoritas. ibid ••. 2. conc. p. 284. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• f 1.370

  Iussus est praeceptionibus regis Papa Symmachus. ibid.
• g 1.371

  Synodus ex praecepto regis congregat••••. ibid.
• h 1.372

  Ibid. p. 285. a
• i 1.373

  Ibid. p. 284. b
• k 1.374

  Commisimus vobis causam, ••os qualiter ••ultis siue dis∣••ussa, siue indis∣cussa, causa pro∣ferte sententiā ibid. pag. 287. b
• l 1.375

  Ibid. p. 285. b.
• m 1.376

  Ibid. p. 285. b
• n 1.377

  Concilio, au∣thoritatem con∣••••a se indulsit. Ennod. Apol pro Symmacho pa. 293. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• o 1.378

  Gers. lib. de Auferibil. papa•• Consid. 12.
• p 1.379

  Symachus Apol. a••duers. Anast. extat to. 3. BB. patr.
• q 1.380

  Hormisda Epist. 5.
• r 1.381

  Idem Epist. 6.
• s 1.382

  Agapetus papae. Anast. in vitae Ag ap.
• t 1.383

  Liber. in Bre∣uiar. cap. 21.
• v 1.384

  Vigilius. euocatus ab Imperatore egreditur. Mar∣cell. in Chron. an. 546.
• x 1.385

  Pelagius •• Epist. 16.
• y 1.386

  Fulgentius lib 1. ad Thra∣simundū prop•• initium.
• z 1.387

  Verba 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fulg. cit antur in Conc. Paris▪ habito an. 829 cap. 3.
• a 1.388

  Agapetus, paranesi ad Iu∣stin. Imper. nu. 61.
• b 1.389

  Ibid. nu. 21
• c 1.390

  Index, Rom. excus. an 1607 pa. 200.
• * 1.391

  Index li. pro∣hib. et expurgat. de consil. Stae. Inquis. Hispan. excus. Madriti. an. 1612. in A∣gapet. pag. 797.
• d 1.392

  Primasius, Com. in Apoc. c. 17. sect. Haben∣tem.
• e 1.393

  Liberatus in Breu. cap. 13.
• f 1.394

  Euagrius, li. 2. c. 18. sect. Est.
• i 1.395

  Cassiodor. variar li. 10. pa. 626
• k 1.396

  Idem in Psal. 50
• l 1.397

  Venantius Fort. li. 3. de vit S. Mart. pa. 313
• m 1.398

  Idem in supplew. p. 348
• n 1.399

  Gregorius Turon, lib. 5 Hist. ca. 18
• * 1.400

  Ab an. 600. ad 700.
• o 1.401

  Conc. Roma∣num sub Aga∣••hone, ••uius Epist. extat. in Conc. gen. 6. Act 4. p. 12. et p. 21.
• p 1.402

  Piissimis do¦minis. Omnes ••os vest••i impe∣•••• famuli. ibid. pa 21.
• q 1.403

  De hac seruili principatus ve∣stri vrbe. ibid. pa. 12. & 22.
• r 1.404

  Seruilis pro∣••inciae. pa. 12
• s 1.405

  Ibid.
• t 1.406

  Ibid. p. 13.
• * 1.407

  Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist Indic. 13. ep. 34.
• x 1.408

  Idem lib. 2. Indi••. 11 ep. 62
• y 1.409

  Serenissimus dominus praece∣pit. id em lib. 4. Epist. 34▪ cit. & Ego dominorū iussionibus obedientiam praebens. lib. eod. 4. ••p. ••2 et, Ego missioni subie∣ctus. l. 2 ep. 62.
• z 1.410

  Idem lib. 2. Epist. 62.
• a 1.411

  Isiodor Hisp. lib. Senteni. ca. 52.
• b 1.412

  Leontius li. de sect. Art. 4.
• c 1.413

  Iustus Org. Com. in Cant. in illa verba, Quia •• caput meum plenū est
• * 1.414

  Ab An. 700 ad 800.
• d 1.415

  Conc. Rom. sub Hadriano 1. extat decretū eius Dist. 63. ••. Haedrianus.
• e 1.416

  Bar. an. 774 nu. 10. & seq.
• f 1.417

  Gre••s. Apol. pro Baron. c. 1. & li. 2. cont. Replic. ca. 1.
• g 1.418

  Sigebertus ipse finxit. ador nauit impostu∣ram. O scelus, O Impostura▪ Bar. loc. cit. Si∣gebertus huius figmenti figu∣lus. Gret. Apol. ca. 1. sect. dices. huius cōmenti author. ibid. sect. In priore. Hoc ius archi∣tectatus ect Si∣gebertus. Apol. cap. 1. sest. po∣stea.
• h 1.419

  Sigebertus an. 1112. sua scripsit. Bar. an. 774. nu. 10. Grets. Apol. c. 1. sect. Tertio.
• i 1.420

  Dodoch. ap∣pend. ad Mar. Scot. an. 1110. & Mat. Paris. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1112.
• k 1.421

  Gregorio 6 in pon••ificatu suc∣cessit Clemens 〈◊〉〈◊〉 46 Bar. ••o 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1.
• l 1.422

  Verba Gre∣gorij et integra eius oratio ex∣tat apud Guil. Malsb. lib. 2 Hist. Angl sect. Si vobis.
• m 1.423

  Grets. lib. 2 contra Replic. ca. 1. § Alter. Oratio illa a Malsburiensi appicta & aff••cta.
• n 1.424

  Ad exempl•••• B. Hadriani qui domino Carolo ordinationem Apostolica sedis & inuestitura•• episcoporum cō∣cessit. Conc. Rom sub Leon•• 8. cuius decretū extat Distinc. 96. c. In Synod••
• o 1.425

  Bar. an. 964 nu. 22 et seq.
• p 1.426

  Grets. Apol. pro Bar. cap 18
• q 1.427

  Bar. an 99•• nu. 41
• r 1.428

  Carolus obijt an. 814. Bar. eo an. nu. 57. A∣nastasius flo∣ruit an. 858. B••llar. lib de¦scrip. eccle. in Anast.
• s 1.429

  Onuphr in vi∣ta Gregor. 7.
• t 1.430

  Gretz. lib. 2. cont. Replic. ca. 1. §. Dixi.
• u 1.431

  Gratianus Sigeberti im∣posturam tori∣dem verbis ex∣scripsit, & ve∣luti pontificum dec••etum vel Synodi cano∣nem suo libro inseruit. Bar. an. 774. nu. 13
• x 1.432

  Plat. in vit. Pascalis 1.
• y 1.433

  Nam Ana∣stasius vitas Pontificum (seu vt Possev vocat Historiam Pon∣tificum) conti∣nuauit ad Ha∣drianum 2. vt put at Onuph. Annot. ad Plat. post vit. Nichol. 1. & Bel. lib. de script. Eccle. in Anast. Sed Baronius vs{que} ad Step. 6 Bar. an. 885. nu. 7.
• a 1.434

  Eurr. Long. lib. de. Iur. Imp.
• b 1.435

  Vt ex fin•• libriliquet.
• c 1.436

  Iuo in suo decret. tit. de elect. pontifi••is
• d 1.437

  Si∣gebertus scripsit post Iuouem. Boet. Epo. tract de Regal••veliure princ. in Ben••ficijs eccl•• nu. 144.
• e 1.438

  Waltr. Naumb lib. de Inuestit.
• f 1.439

  Waltramus fit Episcopus Citzeus (is idem est qui Naumburge••sis Munst. Cosmogr. lib. 3. in Magdeburgo) an. 10••9 & an. 21. post obijt. Chron. Citizen Paul. Laugij an. 1089 si•• obijt biennio antequam scripsit Sigebertus.
• g 1.440

  Grat Dist. 6••. ca. Adrianus.
• h 1.441

  Gloss. ••n dist. 63. ca. In Synodo voce Affici.
• i 1.442

  Lupol lid. de Z••l-German. princ. ca. 8.
• k 1.443

  Theod. de Niem. lib de priv. & Iurib. imperij § Post.
• l 1.444

  Rad. de Colum. lib de Transt Imper. sect. Hoc ita{que}.
• m 1.445

  Mars. Pat. lib. de transl. Imp. ca. 10.
• n 1.446

  Oc∣cam. part. 3. tract 2. lib. 3. ca. 3.
• o 1.447

  Ant. Rossel. part. 2. Monarch. a. 8.
• p 1.448

  10. Semec. di∣stinct. 63.
• q 1.449

  Fran. Zobar. lib. de Schism. sect. Quis.
• r 1.450

  Turrecrem. in dist. 63.
• s 1.451

  Cusan. lib. 3. Concor. Catho. ca. 3.
• * 1.452

  Card. Camer. lib. de eccles. author. par. 1. c. 1. sect. Ex ea∣dem.
• t 1.453

  Plat. loc. cit▪
• u 1.454

  Naucl. ad an. 772.
• x 1.455

  Mar. Pol. ad an. 780.
• y 1.456

  Wern. ad. an. 784.
• z 1.457

  Chr. Reich. ad an 774.
• a 1.458

  Gagni. lib. 4. in Car. mag.
• b 1.459

  Mat. Pa••s. ad an. 1112.
• c 1.460

  Math. West. in Floril. an. 773.
• d 1.461

  Onuph. loc. cit.
• * 1.462

  Boet. Epo. de Regal. nu. 162 & seq.
• e 1.463

  Conc. Fran∣coford. in li∣bell. Sacrasyl∣labo. in initio.
• f 1.464

  Ibid.
• g 1.465

  Ibid. in Epist. Caroli ad Eli∣pandum.
• h 1.466

  Ado Vien. an. 792.
• i 1.467

  Stephanus 3. Epistol. 3.
• k 1.468

  Petrus Apostolus Pipino. Carolo &c. Ego Petrus Apostolus &c. Inter Epist. Steph 3. Epist. 4.
• l 1.469

  Protestor, ad m••neo, et con∣iuro vos Christi anissimos reges &c. ibid.
• * 1.470

  Hadrian 1 Epi. 1. Domini•• pijssimis.
• m 1.471

  Ibid. vt cita∣tur in▪ Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 1.
• n 1.472

  Ibid. in fine.
• o 1.473

  Gregorius 2. Epist•• 3 sect. Attu.
• p 1.474

  Germanus perstrinxit Ita∣los tanquam Imperatori su•• nō ob••ēperantes Bar. an. 730. nu. 6.
• q 1.475

  Beda in Psal. 50
• r 1.476

  Damascenus Orat. 2. de I∣mag. pa 736
• s 1.477

  Bonifacius Mogunt apud Othlon, li. 2. de vit. Bonif.
• t 1.478

  Paulus diac. Hist▪ miscel l. 11
• v 1.479

  Alcuinus epist. 4. ad Da∣uidem regem.
• x 1.480

  Vt liquet ex Epist. 1 vbi se pr••••••ptorē hu∣iu•• Dauidis fu¦isse not at et hoc idem obseruat Hen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to. 6 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lect. p. 520
• y 1.481

  idem Alcuin. i•• li Carminum to. 6 Ant. lect. Henr. Canis.
• n 1.482

  Cone. Paris. sub Greg. 4. in praefat.
• * 1.483

  Ab an. 800 ad 900.
• o 1.484

  Eodem conc, cap. 3.
• p 1.485

  Conc. Tri∣buriense in praefat.
• q 1.486

  Celebratū est concilium sub Arnulpho Im∣peratore a. 895 Bin exvetustiss, codice hoc cita•• ante d••cr••ta il∣lius Conc.
• r 1.487

  Stephanus 7 in Ep. ad Basil▪ quae extat inter ep Synodales Con•• 8. apud Bin. to. 3. p. 899
• s 1.488

  Nicholaus papa▪ ••ius ver∣ba citantur Caus. 33. q. 2. ••. Inter 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• t 1.489

  Photius epis∣copos euocat Synodum insti∣tuit, exaucto∣rationem at{que} Anathema in Nicholaum pa∣pam pronūciat. Nicet. Dauid in vita Ignat. pae∣triar. Constant.
• v 1.490

  Hincmarus Epist. 4. cap. 1.
• x 1.491

  Idem epist. 5. ca. 38.
• y 1.492

  Inter Epist. Hincmari ep. 9. ca. 6.
• z 1.493

  Amalarius praefat. ad li. de offic. eccles.
• a 1.494

  Haimo com. in ca. 11. Hose. in ea verba, co∣medit capitae.
• b 1.495

  Theodulp. in lib. carm. ••pud Ken. Ca∣nis. to. 6. p. 504
• * 1.496

  Ab an. 900. ad 1000.
• c 1.497

  Conc, Rom. sub Othon. 1. Eius acta extāt apud Litpr li. 6 ca. 6. 7 et seq.
• d 1.498

  Synod ••om. sub Leone 8. cu∣ius decretum extat Dist. 63. c. In Synodo▪ et recit atur ver∣batim vt De∣cretum Synodi a Bar. an. 996. nu. 41.
• e 1.499

  Loco cit.
• f 1.500

  The▪ de Niem li. de priuil. et Iur. Imp. sect. Conuenit.
• g 1.501

  Wal. Naumb. li. de Inuest. sect. Papa Leo.
• h 1.502

  Mart. Pol. an. 964.
• i 1.503

  Lupold lib. de Zelo Germ. princ. ca 8.
• k 1.504

  Mars. Pat. li. de transl. Imp. ca. 10
• l 1.505

  Rad. de Colū. li. de trans. Im∣per. §. quantū.
• m 1.506

  Plat. in ••••on. 8
• n 1.507

  Nau••. an. 963
• o 1.508

  Cusan. Conc. Cathol. l. 3. c. 3.
• p 1.509

  Pet. de Alliac. Card. Camer. l. de eccl. authorit. Part. 1. c. 1. § Ex eadem.
• * 1.510

  Bar. an. 964. nu. 21. et seq. vbi imposturam et adsci∣titiam Synodum vocat. Gretz. Apol pro Bar. c. 18. Bulla, seu decretum est commentitium.
• q 1.511

  Bar et Gretz. l••c. cit.
• r 1.512

  Bar. an. ••96 nu 41
• s 1.513

  Bar. an. 963 nu. 34. vbi vocat hunc Le∣onem, Monstrū. eius surerogati∣onem iure nul∣lam, et pseudo-Leonem hunc e numero pontifi∣cum exploden∣dum ait. ibid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 38
• t 1.514

  Decretum Syn Rom. sub Leon 8
• v 1.515

  Alb. Crantz. li. ••. Saxoniae. cap 10.
• x 1.516

  Theo de Niem l. de priu et Iur. Imp. sect. Con∣uenit.
• y 1.517

  The. de Niem loco cit. in titulo cap.
• z 1.518

  Kr••nt. et Niem. loc. cit
• a 1.519

  Constitutio nomine Leonis con••icta. Bar. an. 964. nu. 24. a non legitimo papa promul∣gata ibid. n. 22 Impos••or fuit. ineptus, stoli∣dus, insulsus ibid. n. 24. ficti tiam Bullam. commentitium diploma, vocat Gretz. Apol. pro Bar. c. 19. et l. 2 cont. Repl. c. 14
• b 1.520

  Bar. an. 996 nu. 41
• c 1.521

  Barnardiver∣ba citantur in Chron. magno Belgic. an. 962 pa. 84
• d 1.522

  Cusan. li. 3. conc cath. ca. 2.
• e 1.523

  Ibid. ca. 3.
• * 1.524

  Epistola vni versitatum Paris. Oxon. Prag. et Rom. de authoritate Imperatoris.
• f 1.525

  Eutropius Longob. li. de Iurib. & priu. Imp.
• g 1.526

  Luitprandus lib. 6. cap. 6. 7.
• h 1.527

  Ibid. cap. 11.
• i 1.528

  Ibid.
• k 1.529

  Rhegino in Chron. ad. an. 963. & 964.
• l 1.530

  Abbo Flo∣riac. li. 1. de ob∣sid. Lutetiae, in initio.
• m 1.531

  Whitichind. lib. 2. Gest. Saxonic.
• n 1.532

  Frodoardus in Chron. an. 948.
• * 1.533

  Ab an. 1000▪ ad 1100.
• a 1.534

  Concil. Worm. apud Abb. Vrsperg. an. 1076. & Lamb. Scaff. an. eodem.
• b 1.535

  Ab. V••sp. loc. cit. & Albert. Stad. an. 1076
• c 1.536

  Lamber. Scaff. loc. cit. sententiam pro∣mulgarunt.
• d 1.537

  Decretum est vt bannum Hildebrandi nullus curaret, nec papa esset. Marian. Scot. an. 1077.
• e 1.538

  Abb. V••sp. an. 1076. & Lamb. Scaff. an. eodem.
• f 1.539

  Conc. P••p. to. 3. Conc. pag. 1283.
• g 1.540

  Fit patrum consultum hu∣iusmodi. Auent. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 452.
• h 1.541

  Auent. loc. ci••
• i 1.542

  Binio hoc id•• est cū Papiensi Concilio.
• k 1.543

  Auent. loc. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• l 1.544

  Conuentus in Gerstunga•• apud Waltram lib. 2. Apol. pr•• Henr. 4. cap. ••9
• m 1.545

  Conc. Mo∣gunt. apud Si∣geb. an. 1079.
• n 1.546

  Conc. Brix ••ense apud Al∣bert. Stad. an. 1030. et Mar. Scot. eod. an.
• o 1.547

  Abb. V••sp. an 1080.
• p 1.548

  Conc. Mo∣gunt. apud Alb. Stad. an. 1085
• q 1.549

  Conc. Mo∣gunt. apud Ioh. Auentin. lib. 5. p. 464. & seq.
• r 1.550

  Conc. Rom. cuius Acta ha∣bentur inter Imper. Constit. to. 3. pa. 3••5. et in Fasc. rer. ex∣pet. pa. 43.
• s 1.551

  Iudicium bonorū. apud Ioh. Auent. lib. 5. pa. 470.
• t 1.552

  Lib. cod. p. 455
• u 1.553

  Ecclesia Le∣od. in Epistola aduers. Pascalē 2. circ. an. 1107
• x 1.554

  Decanus & Eccl. Lauris. in suo libell. supplici.
• z 1.555

  Multae sunt aliae nouitates, dogmata▪ sectae. Praefatas here∣ses sectasque. Conciaat haec heresis▪ ibid.
• a 1.556

  Rodulphus.
• b 1.557

  Hel mold Chron. Slau. ca. 29. & Alb. Stad. an. 1080.
• * 1.558

  Hildebran∣dus poenitens.
• d 1.559

  Math. Par. an. 1086▪ in Guiliel. conq.
• e 1.560

  Sigeb. a. 1085
• f 1.561

  Flor. Wigor. in Chron. a. 1106
• g 1.562

  Cusp. in Henr. 4. prope finem.
• h 1.563

  Sig. & Floren. loc. cit.
• * 1.564

  Florent. loc. cit.
• b 1.565

  Ioh. Auen. li. 5. pa. 470.
• c 1.566

  Lanf. epist. ad Hug. quae est apud Bar. an. 1080. nu. 27
• d 1.567

  Geroch. eiu•• verba habētur apud Auen. li. 5: pa. 446.
• e 1.568

  Venerius li. de vnitate ecel. citatur in Ca∣tal. test. verit. lib. 13.
• f 1.569

  Conradi Oratio extat apud Avent. li. 5. pa. 463.
• g 1.570

  Osbert Leod. li. de vitae Hen. 4. sect. Igitur Saxones▪
• h 1.571

  Epis. Treuir. cuius Epist. ex∣tat in li. Imper. Const. to. 1. p. 46
• i 1.572

  Epis. Virdu∣nensis epist. ex∣tat ibidem.
• k 1.573

  Walt. Episc. Medeb. ep. ex∣tat apud Do∣dech. in Append ad Mar. Scot. an. 1090.
• l 1.574

  Walt. Naū∣ber. lib. 1. de vnit. ecc. & Imper. cap. 18.
• m 1.575

  Walt. lib. 2. quae vocatur Apologia cap. 2
• n 1.576

  Lib. eodem ca. eodem.
• o 1.577

  Ibid. cap. 11.
• p 1.578

  Ibid. ca. 4.
• q 1.579

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.580

  Leo 9. Ep. 7
• r 1.581

  Damianus lib. 4. ep. 9. ad Older. Firmanū
• * 1.582

  Bar. an. 1053 nu. 14.
• s 1.583

  Oecumenius in cap. 13. ad Rom.
• t 1.584

  Theophil. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13. ad Rom.
• u 1.585

  Anselmue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 26. ca. Math.
• x 1.586

  Iu•• ep. 171
• z 1.587

  Glab. Rod. lib. 4. cap. 5.
• a 1.588

  Sig. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1088
• * 1.589

  Vt liquet ex ijs quae hoc sae∣culo diximu••: et ex Decreto Lud. Baua••ri cū concilio procerū in quo ita dicūt Illos, quod a nobis & Impe∣rio deficere nol∣lent, quod cri∣men laesae maie∣statis, & scelus perfidiae admit∣tere recusarent, Haeresis nota in ••ssit papa. apud Auent. lib. 7. pag. 613.
• * 1.590

  Ab an. 1100 ad 1200.
• a 1.591

  Conc. Tirc. apud Bin in vi∣ta Pascal. 2. pag. 1304.
• b 1.592

  Petr. Diac. in Chron. Cassine••. lib. 4. cap. 40.
• c 1.593

  Naucl. gener. 38. in initio. et Sigeb. an. 1111
• d 1.594

  Alb. Stadens. an. 1111.
• e 1.595

  Petr. Diac. Chron. Cass. lib. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 41.
• f 1.596

  Lib. ••od. c. 42
• g 1.597

  Papa tradidit ••i in oculis om∣nium principū priuilegium de inu••stitura &c. Sigeb. an. 1111
• h 1.598

  Petr. Diac. l. 4 ca. 42.
• i 1.599

  Sicuti Catho∣lici Imperatores solent. ibid.
• k 1.600

  Abb. Vsperg. an. 1112. Alb. Stad. an. eodem Naucl. an. eod. & Conc. Later. sub Pascal. 2. pa. 1309.
• l 1.601

  Sigeb. a. 1111
• m 1.602

  Imperatorem a liminibus ec∣clesiae seque∣strandum cen∣suerunt. Alb. Stad. an. 1112
• n 1.603

  Papae legati Imperatoris ex∣communicatio∣nem publicant. Naucl. a. 1112 pa 739.
• o 1.604

  Naucl. a. 1112
• b 1.605

  Epist. Frid. 1. extat apud Ra∣deu. lib. 2. de gest. Frid. 1. cap. 56.
• c 1.606

  Rad. ibid. ••. 55
• d 1.607

  Orat. Frid. apud Rad. li. 2. cap. 64.
• e 1.608

  Rad. ibid. c. 6••
• f 1.609

  Idolum sibi Roulādū ••uexe∣runt. epist. Imp. ibid. cap. 71.
• * 1.610

  Naucl. a. 1177
• g 1.611

  Epi. Hadrian. extat apud Ra∣deuic. lib. 1. de gest. Frid. ca. 15
• h 1.612

  Episcopi German. quo∣rum epist. extas lib. eod. cap. 16
• i 1.613

  Conuentus Roncal. apud Radeu. lib. 2. de gest. Frid. 1. cap. 1. & seq.
• k 1.614

  Ibid. cap. 4.
• c 1.615

  Pascalis De∣cretum extat in lib. Constit. Imper. tom. 1. pag. 54.
• d 1.616

  Innoc••n••. 3 Cap. Per v••ne∣rabil••m. lib. ••. Decretal. Greg. tit. Qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• e 1.617

  Celestine 3. Extra. de Iudic. cae. cum non ab homine.
• * 1.618

  Senatus & populus Rom. Eorum Epist. extat to. 1. Con∣stit. Imp. pa. 56
• f 1.619

  Episc. Ale∣maniae. apud Rad. lib. 1. de ge••••. Frid. ca. 16
• * 1.620

  Eccl. Graeca
• g 1.621

  Humber. lib. contra Graecorū calumnias, pro∣pe initium.
• * 1.622

  Paul. ••emil. in Phil. 4. & Ae∣neas Silu. lib. 9 E••ist. in Blon••.
• h 1.623

  Theod. Bals. Comm. in Can. 16. Conc. Car∣thag.
• i 1.624

  Idem. Comm. in Can. 7. Conc. 6. in Trullo. pa 369.
• k 1.625

  Ath••n. Con∣stant. li. de ne∣cess. episc. res. cap. 6.
• l 1.626

  Euthym. in Psal. 50.
• m 1.627

  Bernard. li. 2 de Consid. ad Eug.
• p 1.628

  Huge de S. Victore, lib. 2 de Sacram. par. 2. cap. 4.
• q 1.629

  Lupold. lib. de Iure regum. & ••mp. cap. 9.
• * 1.630

  Aug. Triump. de po••est. eccl. q. 36. ar. 3.
• r 1.631

  Pet. Cli••man li. 6. epist. 46
• * 1.632

  Gratianus. Caus. 2 q. 7. ca. Nos si incompe∣tenter.
• s 1.633

  Pet. Lomb. lib. 2. sentent. dist. 44. ca. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 comment. suo in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 13.
• * 1.634

  Henr. Gor. com. in. cap. cit. lib. 2. sent. Pet. tomb.
• t 1.635

  Pet. Blesensis Epist. 73.
• x 1.636

  Epist. 42.
• y 1.637

  Ioh. Sarisb. Epist. 218.
• * 1.638

  Geruas. cuius epist extat inter Epist Al••xand. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ni••ol. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est nume••o 21.
• f 1.639

  Ioak. Abbas com. in Ierem. ca. 22. pa. 310.
• g 1.640

  Posseu. Ap∣par. in Ioa••••••m
• * 1.641

  Ibid. pa. 313.
• m 1.642

  Ibid. in ca. 24 pa. 330
• o 1.643

  Eberhardus epist. extat apud Radeu. li. 2. de gest. Frid. ca. 71.
• p 1.644

  Otho Fris. i•• epi. ad Frid. Imper. praefixa suo Chro••.
• q 1.645

  Helmoldus in Chron. Slau. cap. 33.
• y 1.646

  Gotof. Vit. in Henr. 4 part. 16. pa. 499.
• z 1.647

  Ibid. pa. 499
• * 1.648

  Ab an. 1200 ad 1300.
• a 1.649

  Bin. in vita. Greg. 9. et. Alb. Stad. an. 1240.
• b 1.650

  Conc. Lugdu. apud Mat Par. pa. 896. et. seq. an. 1245.
• c 1.651

  Alb. Stad. an. 1245.
• d 1.652

  Principes. Alb. Stad. lo••. citatis.
• d 1.653

  Lit. Innocent▪ recitantur a Math. Paeris. a. 1216. p. 370.
• e 1.654

  Innoc ibid.
• f 1.655

  Barones & Praelati An∣gliae. eorum verba habētur apud Mat. Par. an. eodem 1216 pa. 372.
• g 1.656

  Innocent. 4 in cap. Nouerit. de Sententia excommunic. nu. 2.
• h 1.657

  Eberherdus apud Auent. lib. 7. pag. 546. 547.
• * 1.658

  Alexa. Hal. part. 3. q. 40. memb. 5.
• k 1.659

  Ibidem.
• l 1.660

  Nich. Lyran. in Psal. 50.
• m 1.661

  Th. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 96. art. 5. ad 3.
• p 1.662

  Conrad Ab. Vrsp. in An••∣ceph. post 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1124
• q 1.663

  Ibidem.
• r 1.664

  Conspiratio facta est. et, huic conspirationi. ••dem an. 1152. pa. 288.
• s 1.665

  Idem pa. 289. 290.
• t 1.666

  Guntherus Ligur. lib. 6. pag. 369.
• u 1.667

  Ecclesiam ille diu ina{que} iurae temperet: Impe∣rium nobis, fas∣ces{que} relinquat. ibid.
• * 1.668

  Durandus lib. de modo ce∣lebrandi concil. part. 1. tit. 2.
• y 1.669

  Pet. de Vin. lib. 1. Epist. 3.
• z 1.670

  Pet. Cassio. lib. de Tyrann. papae. §. Nonne.
• a 1.671

  Al. Cement. ••ius verba ha∣bentur apud Math. Paris. in Ioh. §. Ingessit.
• b 1.672

  Rain. Pisan. Pantheol. part. ••. tit. de domin. ••ap. 2.
• c 1.673

  Vinc. Be••ua••. Spec. Hist. li. 26 ca. 84.
• * 1.674

  Ioh. Semeca. apud Kran••••. l. 8. Saxon. c. ••f.
• f 1.675

  Accursius in Authent. tit. Quomodo op••r∣tet Episc. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conferens.
• g 1.676

  Ioh. de Parli lib. depotest. regia. & papali in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• h 1.677

  Ibid. cap. 5.
• i 1.678

  Ibid. ca. 8. et 9▪
• k 1.679

  Ibid. cap. 10.
• a 1.680

  Ab an. 1300 ad 1400.
• b 1.681

  Conc. Gall. apud Nau••l an. 1300. & Ga∣gnin. lib. 7. in Phil. pulchro.
• c 1.682

  Conc. sub Ludouico Ba••aro. Lud. rex consilio ha∣bito. Naucl. an. 1323.
• d 1.683

  Vt secibit Hermanus. Naucl. ibid.
• e 1.684

  Conuent. Trident. apud Zouiū an. 1327 nu. 1. vbi Co∣••itūs vocat.
• * 1.685

  Aderant plurimi Episc. praelati, & re∣gulares, Zouius 〈◊〉〈◊〉. eod. nu. ••.
• g 1.686

  Ibidem.
• h 1.687

  Conc. Fran∣coford. apud Krantz. lib. 9. Saxon. cap. 15.
• i 1.688

  Auent. lib. 7. pag. 6 10.
• k 1.689

  Krantz. loe••••▪ cit.
• l 1.690

  Auent. loc. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• u 1.691

  Lupoldus Babenb. lib. de Iur. regni & Imp. cap. 9.
• * 1.692

  Dist. 63. cap. Tibi domino.
• y 1.693

  Cap. eodem.
• z 1.694

  Cap. venera∣bilem. extra de elect. & ••líct. potest. & Cap. Romani. in Cle∣ment. de Iure∣iurando.
• a 1.695

  Glossa. in cap. Adrianus, di∣stinc. 63. verb. patriciatus.
• b 1.696

  Lupold. ca cit.
• c 1.697

  Cap. Quia clerici Extra de iure Patrona∣tus. vbi qui ius acquirit Patro∣natus dicitur Aduocatiam ecclesiae acqui∣rere.
• d 1.698

  Lupol. lo••. ci••.
• f 1.699

  Lib. eod. ca. 14
• g 1.700

  Quod omnes tangit abomni∣bus approbari debet. Regul. Iur. 29.
• h 1.701

  Guil. Oc∣cam. part. 1. lib. ••. cap. 9.
• i 1.702

  Auent. lib. 7. pag. 609
• k 1.703

  Occam. ca. cit.
• l 1.704

  Occam. lib. eod. cap. 4.
• m 1.705

  Lib. eod. ca. 3
• n 1.706

  Phil. Achill. in Somino V••i∣darij ca••. 146. & 147.
• o 1.707

  Cap. Causam. Extra. Qui fils•• sint legit. sed caput illud a nōnullis tribui∣tur Alexand. 3
• p 1.708

  Lib. eodem cap. 163.
• q 1.709

  Ibidem.
• r 1.710

  Mars. Patau. Defens. pacis. part. 2. cap. 4. sect. verum.
• s 1.711

  Ibid. sect. Pro∣sequentes.
• t 1.712

  Ibid. Nec ase.
• u 1.713

  Lib. eod. ca. 5 sect. Amplius.
• x 1.714

  Mic. Cesen.
• y 1.715

  Sic eum do∣cuisse testatur Illir. in Catal. test. lib. 18.
• z 1.716

  Hac ex Anto∣nino. •• 4. part. Summ. citantur. ibidem.
• a 1.717

  Ioh. de Gan∣duno. in Infor∣mat. de nullita∣te process. Ioh. 22. contr. Lu∣douic. Bau. Imp.
• b 1.718

  Pauperes de Lugdun. apud Christ. Massaū. li. 18. in princ.
• c 1.719

  Ioh. 22. bulla qua damnauit Mars. & Ioh. de Gand. extat apud Zouium an. 1327. nu. 7. Bulla alia qua idem Ioh. 22. condemnauit Occam. et Mich. Cesen. extat a∣pud eundem an. 1328. nu. 7.
• d 1.720

  Ioh. Wickl. apud Th. Wal∣dens. doct. fidei tom. 1. lib. 4. art. 3. cap. 36.
• e 1.721

  Vt liquet ex Artic. Wicklief condemn. in C••n••••l. Const. Sess. d. art. Wic. 37.
• f 1.722

  Nilus Thess. lib. 2. sect. Af∣firmant.
• g 1.723

  Lib. eod. sect. Quod vero.
• h 1.724

  Barlaam. de papa princ. ca. ••
• i 1.725

  Ibid. cap. 4.
• k 1.726

  Ibid. cap. 3.
• l 1.727

  Niceph. Callistus. lib. 16. cap. 43
• m 1.728

  Math. We∣monast. lib. 2. in Guil. Conq.
• n 1.729

  Petrarcha, Epigram. in Romam. Delli Sonett. part. 1. Son. 108.
• o 1.730

  Idem li. epist. sine titulo ep. 7.
• p 1.731

  Idem. vt cita∣tur in Catalog. testium verit. lib. 18.
• q 1.732

  Dant. Alig. lib. 3. de Mo∣narch. §. Con∣clusit.
• r 1.733

  Bartholus ff. leg. Hostes. tis. de Captiuis.
• s 1.734

  Couar. par. ••. Relect. sect. 9. nu. 6. pag. 505.
• t 1.735

  Baldus in Pro••m. sup. ff. ••etus. n••. 8. 9.
• u 1.736

  Cynus in L. Bene a Zenone. Cod. de Qua∣drien. praescrip.
• x 1.737

  Alberic. de Rosat. in L. Bene •• Zenone. Cod. de Quad. praesc. nu. 4. fol. 109. et 110.
• Y 1.738

  Idem Cod in legē Gloriosissi∣mo de summa T••init. nu. 6.
• Z 1.739

  Ioh••nn. de Rup. citatur in Catal. test. ••er. bib. 18.
• a 1.740

  Chron. maegnū Belgic. an. 1356
• b 1.741

  Frossard. lib. 2 Chron. prope fi∣nem▪ cuius ver∣ba citantur in Catal. test. loc. cit.
• c 1.742

  Ibidem
• d 1.743

  Zouius cont. An. Bar. an. 1357. nu. 4.
• e 1.744

  Hildegardis prophetia extat integra apud Alb. Stad. post. an. 1149. p. 169 ad 178.
• f 1.745

  Hild. ibid. pa. 174.
• g 1.746

  Alb. Stad. pa. 169.
• h 1.747

  Brigit. lib. 1 Reuelat. ca. 41.
• a 1.748

  Concil Pisanū apud Bin. tom. 3. pa. 1553.
• * 1.749

  Ab An. 1400: ad 1500.
• b 1.750

  Qui verus & legitimus pontifex erat. Bin. Not. in Concil. Con∣stant. §. Con∣cilium.
• c 1.751

  Bell. lib. 1. de. Conc. ca 8.
• d 1.752

  Concil. Con∣stant. apud Bin. tom. 3. pa. 1556.
• e 1.753

  Communis ferme opinio fuit Alexandrū & Iohannem fuisse veros pontifices. Bel. loc. cit.
• f 1.754

  Conc. Con∣stant. sess. 11, art. 5.
• g 1.755

  Conc. Con∣stant. sess. 4.
• h 1.756

  Ibid. Sess. 15 pa. 1600.
• i 1.757

  Bell. lib 1. de Conc. ca. 7. §. Quintum.
• k 1.758

  Bell. loc. cit.
• l 1.759

  Concil. Ba••••••∣ense sess. 33. pa. 79. & sess. 38. pa. 83.
• m 1.760

  Epist. Sy∣nod. Conc. Basil. sess. 45. in Decreto quinque con∣clusionum. pa. 96.
• n 1.761

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 7 §. Sextum. & lib. ••. ca. 17. §. Denique.
• o 1.762

  Decreta de fide••mmutabi∣l•••• sunt, nec pos••unt v••lo modo abroga∣ri. Bell lib. 2. cit. ca. 17. §. Denique.
• p 1.763

  Est veritas fidei Catholi∣cae. Conc. Bas. ••ss. 33.
• q 1.764

  Appellatio Vniuers. Paris. §. Sed Romani
• r 1.765

  Concil. Bi∣turicense, apud Gaguin. lib. 10 in Carolo. 7. pa. 226.
• s 1.766

  Aeneas Syl∣uius lib de or∣tu & Author. Imperi•• ca. 23
• t 1.767

  Lib. eodem. ca. 16.
• n 1.768

  Card Came∣racens. de resumpt. Concl. 1.
• x 1.769

  Idem Pet. de Aliac. lib. de Eccles. au∣thoritate in Prooemio.
• y 1.770

  Card Cusa. nus lib. 3. de Conc. Cathol. ca. 3.
• z 1.771

  Idem lib. eod. ca. 41.
• a 1.772

  Card. Tur∣recr. in Psal. 50.
• b 1.773

  Idem in dist. 96. art. 1.
• c 1.774

  Card. Alba∣nus lib. de do∣nat. Constan∣tini nu. 5.
• d 1.775

  Card. Zaba∣rella lib de Schis. §. quis.
• e 1.776

  Ibid. §. quarto.
• f 1.777

  Lib. eod. §. quintus.
• h 1.778

  Laur. Valla. lib. de Donat. Constantini. in princ.
• i 1.779

  Tritem. lib. de script Ec∣cles. in Laur. Valla.
• k 1.780

  Ibid. non longe a fine.
• l 1.781

  Iohan. Hus. in Determinat. in Acad. Prag. an. 1410. de ablat Tem∣por. a c••er. nu. 27.
• m 1.782

  Art. 27. Ioh. Hus reci∣tatus in Conc-Const Sess. 15.
• n 1.783

  Art. 28 Ioh. Hus.
• o 1.784

  Art. q. eius∣dem.
• p 1.785

  Ioh. Gerson. lib. de. Potest. Eccles. Con∣sid. 12.
• q 1.786

  Iohan. Ma∣ior in distinc. ••4. q. 3. Concl. ••.
• r 1.787

  Iacob. Al∣maine. lib. de potest. Eccles. & Laica.
• s 1.788

  Ibid quaest. 1 ca 6. §. Quae. ritur.
• t 1.789

  Ibid. §. Istis.
• u 1.790

  Ibid. §. Se∣cunda.
• x 1.791

  Idem. lib. eod. quaest. 3. ca. 8.
• z 1.792

  Nich. de Cle∣mang lib. de corrup. stat. eccle. ca. 5.
• a 1.793

  Lib. eod. ca. 13.
• b 1.794

  Nic. de Clem. de e∣gressu ex Ba∣bylone.
• c 1.795

  Ribera. comm. in ca. 14. Apocal. nu. 44.
• d 1.796

  Theod. de Ni∣con. lib. 3. de Schis. ca. 7.
• e 1.797

  Thom. Wal∣denf. Doctr. ••d. to. 1. lib. 2. Art. 3. ca. 78.
• f 1.798

  Wil Wideford lib. aduer. Wic∣lef. art. 16.
• g 1.799

  Dionis. Carth. in 4. Psal. poenitent.
• h 1.800

  Platina. in Bonif. 8.
• i 1.801

  Idem. in vita Marcellini.
• l 1.802

  Wernerus in fascic. temp. an. 1294.
• m 1.803

  Iohn. Auen. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 470.
• n 1.804

  Idem. lib. eod. pa. 447.
• o 1.805

  Rob. Ga∣gnin. lib. ••. in∣vita Philip. Pulch••i.
• r 1.806

  Pet Ferrari∣ens. in forma libell. in Acti∣on Confess. pro••seru. tit, 30. gloss. ••. §. Plenam.
• s 1.807

  Georg. de Hi∣emburg. in ad∣monit. de in∣iust. vsurpat, paparum.
• t 1.808

  Ibid. §. Ex quibus.
• u 1.809

  Ibid. §. Qui∣bus.
• x 1.810

  Ant. Rossell. lib. de Mo∣narch. part. 1. ca. 38.
• * 1.811

  Ab An. 1500. ad 1620.
• a 1.812

  Chron. Ci∣tiz. Paul. Lang. an. 1513.
• b 1.813

  Conc. Pisan. de quo. Nich. Basel in con∣tin. Naucl. an. 1511 Genera∣le Concilium Pisis indixe∣rūt. Rex gene∣ralem conuen∣tum indicendū curauit. O∣nuph. in vit. Iul. 2.
• c 1.814

  Onuph. loc. cit.
• d 1.815

  Nic. Basel. loc. cit.
• e 1.816

  Papa omnē operam dedit vt pacem cum Francorum re¦ge feceret. O∣nuph loc. cit.
• f 1.817

  Quo Pisanum Conciliabulum tolleret, Romae Concilium in dixit. Onuph. Ibid.
• g 1.818

  Parisiens Con∣uentus. Thuan. hist tom. 2. lib. 28. pa. 41 & Bochel. lib. 5. tit. 3. ca. 6.
• h 1.819

  Paris. Con∣uent. apud Bo∣chel lib. 5. tit. 4 ca 8 pa. 134 & 755.
• i 1.820

  Paris. Con∣uent. apud Bo∣chel. lib. 5. tit. 20. ca. 45.
• k 1.821

  Conc. Trid. sess. 25. de Re∣form. cap. 19.
• l 1.822

  Vniuers Pa∣risien in Ap∣pellat à Conc. later. sub Leo∣ne. 10.
• m 1.823

  Gallicana Eules.
• n 1.824

  Relation of State and Re∣ligion in the West parts. pa. 129.
• o 1.825

  Ibid. pa. 1••••
• p 1.826

  Innoc. Gen∣tilet. in exam. Conc. Trid. Sess. 12. pa. 96, 97. & Ioh. Sleid. Com. lib. 22. pa. 33••.
• q 1.827

  Iac. Gaulter in sua Chron. Soec. 17. sub tit Concil. in fine.
• r 1.828

  Basiliensis concilij au∣thoritas, & constantia de∣cretorum eius perpetua esto, &c. Sanct. pragm. in Conc. Bitur. de quo supra.
• s 1.829

  Loc. cit.
• t 1.830

  Decret. Par∣liament. reci∣tatur apud Gold in Re∣plic. pro Imp. ca 9. pa. 81. 82
• u 1.831

  Gretz. lib. 1. cont. Replic. ca 11. §. Eti∣am.
• x 1.832

  Synodi Eccles fiarum reformas tarum.
• y 1.833

  Vide Ioh. Funct. & Christ Heluic. in suis Chron. & Ioh. Sleid. comm de statu Relig.
• z 1.834

  Decretum à Nationali Synodo Eccle. Gallic. cele∣brata Gapinci, an. 1603.
• a 1.835

  Confessiones Reform. Eccles. vid. Harmon. Confessionum
• y 1.836

  Pretestantiū scripta.
• z 1.837

  Marcellus 2.
• a 1.838

  Plat. in vit. Hadriani 6.
• b 1.839

  Plat. in vit Marcelli. 2.
• c 1.840

  Card. Caietan. In Opusc. to. 1. Tract. 3. ca. 7.
• d 1.841

  Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. ••. vbi. citat Caietan. in Apol. ca. 13.
• e 1.842

  Franc. à Vi∣ctor. Relect. 1. de potest ceel. sec. 6. nu. 8. v∣bi cit at Caiet. in Apol. ca. 6.
• f 1.843

  Amb. Cathac. in cap. 13. ad Rom.
• g 1.844

  Dom. Soto. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. Sentu. dist. 25. q. 2. art. 1. concl. 3.
• h 1.845

  Ioh. Driede, de libert. Christ. lib. 1. pa. 145. 146.
• i 1.846

  Andradius defens. Trid. fid. lib 2. pa. ••04.
• k 1.847

  Ibid. pa. ••••3
• l 1.848

  Clau. Espense∣us. Com. in cap. 3. epist. ad Titum. Di∣gress. 10.
• m 1.849

  Idem cōm in epist. ad Ti••met••. D••gress lib. 2. cap. 6.
• n 1.850

  Aib. Krantz. Saxo••. lib. 8. ca. 36.
• o 1.851

  Ioh. Naucl. ad an. 1085.
• p 1.852

  Georgy. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Consultat. Art. 7. Cap. Cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Pontif. Rom. pa. 58.
• q 1.853

  Ibid. Artic. 16. de Magi∣stratu.
• r 1.854

  Alex. Car. lib. 2. de Pon∣tif. Rom. ca. 18. nu. 14.
• s 1.855

  Lib. eod. ca. 1. nu. 6.
• t 1.856

  Sixt. Senensis Bibl. sanct. lib. 6. Annot. 72.
• y 1.857

  Stan. Hosius contra Brent. proleg lib. 5. §. Quartum.
• z 1.858

  Franc. a Vi∣ctor. Relect. 1. de potest. eccle. sect. 2. nu. 7.
• a 1.859

  Ibid. sect. 6. nu. 5.
• b 1.860

  Ibid. nu. 4.
• c 1.861

  Ibid. nu. 5.
• d 1.862

  Ibid nu 8. & Relect. 5. sect. 2. nu. 3.
• e 1.863

  Idem Rel. 1. sect. 2. nu. 9.
• f 1.864

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Pighi. Controu 16. § Quod Christū pa. 254.
• g 1.865

  Bell. lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c••▪ 1. §. Tertia.
• h 1.866

  Duarenus. lib. 1. de sacr. eccle. minist. ca. 4.
• i 1.867

  Ibid.
• i 1.868

  Mich. Coccin, lib. de transl. Imperij.
• k 1.869

  Hier. Balbus. lib. de Coro. nat. pa. 18. & seq.
• l 1.870

  Ibid. pa. 21.
• m 1.871

  Ibid pa. 18▪
• n 1.872

  Ibid▪ pa. 2•• & 18.
• o 1.873

  Ibid. pa. 64. & seq.
• b 1.874

  Onuphrius in vita Greg. 7.
• c 1.875

  Papir. Masson. in vita Bonif. 8
• d 1.876

  Sir Thomas Moore in expo∣sit. passionis. de amputata Malchi aurie.
• e 1.877

  Steph Gard. lib de vera o∣bedien.
• f 1.878

  Iuramenti forma extat in Acts and Mo∣numents in Hen. 8. pa. 964
• g 1.879

  Ed••. Bonner praefat. ad lib. Gardineri.
• h 1.880

  Ioh Stockesley & alij, eorum Iurament. ex∣••at in Act & Monum. loc. ••it. pa. 965.
• i 1.881

  Academ. Can∣tabridg. eius literae extant. ibid pa. 965.
• k 1.882

  Card Poole lib. de summo Pontif. ca. 23.
• l 1.883

  Ibid. cap. 29.
• m 1.884

  Ibid ca. 24. in fine.
• n 1.885

  Card. Alanus in Resp ad per∣seq Angl. ca. 3. pa. 319.
• o 1.886

  Ibid ca. 5. in Princ.
• p 1.887

  Rhemists Testam. in Math. 22. an∣not. 3.
• q 1.888

  Tho Stapleton in hjs Coun∣terblast. lib. 1. diuis. 5. pa. 29.
• r 1.889

  Idem, Do∣ctrin. Princ. lib. 5. ca. 18.
• s 1.890

  Nich. Sanders de Vis. Monar. lib. 2. cap. 4. § Quapropter.
• t 1.891

  Ibid. §. Non tantum.
• u 1.892

  Didac. Ve∣ga super 4. poe∣nitent. conc. 2.
• y 1.893

  Pererius com. in cap. 13. ad Rom. disp. 1.
• z 1.894

  Mele. Canus, loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap 6. §. Aliud.
• a 1.895

  Act 4 Con∣cil. gen. 6.
• b 1.896

  Cor Iansenius Conc. Euang▪ ca. 66. in illa verba, & tibi dabo claues, &c.
• c 1.897

  Fran. Costern. Euchir ca. 3. propos. 3.
• d 1.898

  Iac. de Va∣lent. in Psal. 50.
• b 1.899

  Lorinus in Psal. 50.
• c 1.900

  Hect Pintus in Ezech. ca. 45.
• d 1.901

  Tho. Harding. confut. of the Apologie. part. 6. cap. 12. §. It was.
• e 1.902

  Iac. Bosgraue eius scriptum manu ipsius confignatum apud nos extat. Tortur. Tort••. pa. 24.
• f 1.903

  Nomina myrtyrum, Campianus, Bosgrauius. Concertat. Eccle. cathol. part. 2. pa. 60.
• g 1.904

  Ioh. Rishton. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Tort. Torti. pa. 24.
• g 1.905

  Ibib. p. 227▪
• h 1.906

  Henry Horton ibid.
• i 1.907

  Concert. eccle. cathol. loc. citat.
• k 1.908

  Iohn Hart. Epist. sua ante colloq. cum Ranoldo.
• l 1.909

  Dureus con∣fut. respons. Whitak. fol. 321.
• m 1.910

  Adam Blackued. lib de coniunct. Re∣lig & Imperij.
• n 1.911

  Ibid.
• o 1.912

  Guil Barclai∣us lib. 4. contra Monarchom. cap 4 in••t.
• p 1.913

  Idem lib. de potest. Papae cap. 1. §. Est.
• q 1.914

  Deliriorum Bozij. ibid §. Huius.
• r 1.915

  Ibid.
• s 1.916

  Ibidem.
• t 1.917

  Ibid. §. Mihi
• u 1.918

  Per totum librum.
• x 1.919

  Nin. Winc••t. lib cont. Bu canan. pa. 180.
• y 1.920

  Skulken. A∣pol. pro Bell. contra Wid∣d••ing. cap. 3. pa. 78.
• z 1.921

  Pet Pitheus lib de libert. Eccle. Gallic.
• a 1.922

  Iac. Leschesser apud Bochel. lib. 4. tit. 21. ca. 1.
• b 1.923

  Respub. Ve∣ta
• c 1.924

  Verba Le∣gati Pontif. in Consid. P. M. Pauli. §. Quae aperta. pa. 95.
• d 1.925

  Respons. Se∣natus Venet. lib. eod. pa. 95.
• e 1.926

  Tract. d•• Interdicto. propos. 16.
• f 1.927

  Ant▪ Qu••ri∣nus dissertat. de ••ure Reip. Venet. pa. 61.
• g 1.928

  Ibid.
• h 1.929

  Ibid. pa. 62.
• i 1.930

  Fr. Paulns. Consid. sup. Censur. Pauli ••.
• k 1.931

  Card. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Pon∣tif. Rom. ca. 2. & seq.
• l 1.932

  Ia. Gretz in sua defens. lib. 5. Bellar de Rom. Pontif.
• l 1.933

  Ia. Gretz in sua defens. lib. 5. Bellar de Rom. Pontif.
• m 1.934

  Gretz. ibid. defens. ca. 4. & 5.
• n 1.935

  Ibid. §. Sed en.
• o 1.936

  Adulph. Skulchen. Apol. pro Bellar. contra Wid∣dring. pa. 70.
• p 1.937

  Ibid. pa. 78.
• q 1.938

  Ibid. pa. 108
• r 1.939

  Breireley Apolog. pro∣test. in Praef. sect. 20.
• s 1.940

  Rob. Persons Treatis of Mi∣tigat. ca. 2. nu. 29.
• t 1.941

  Idem, in his answer to Sir Edw. Coke. ca. 2. nu. 31.
• u 1.942

  Georg Black∣well epist. ad Bellar. Fateor me illud iura∣mentum suste∣pisse.
• x 1.943

  Large Exa∣min of Geor. Blackwell. pa. 35.
• y 1.944

  Ibid pa. 55. 56. & seq.
• z 1.945

  Ibid. pa. 70. 71.
• a 1.946

  Ibid. pa. 65. 66.
• b 1.947

  Ibid. pa. 79.
• c 1.948

  Suares dis∣put. 16. de Ex∣comm. maior. sect. 1.
• d 1.949

  Nauar Re∣lect cap. No∣uit. de Iudic. not. 3. pa. 196.
• e 1.950

  Le Franc. d••s∣course pa 14.
• f 1.951

  Ibid. pa 16.
• g 1.952

  Pa. 18.
• h 1.953

  Iesuites Cate∣chisme lib. 3. c••. 17. §. For.
• i 1.954

  Lib eod. ca. 9. in Titulo.
• k 1.955

  English Ca∣tholikes vt te∣statur Wid∣dring. in Apol. Princ. contr. Bell. nu. 3.
• l 1.956

  Becan. con∣trou. Anglic. cap. 3. q. 2. nu. 1
• m 1.957

  Cap. eod. q. 3. nu 14.
• n 1.958

  Ibid. nu. 17.
• o 1.959

  Censura Fa∣cult. Paris. de lib. Becani. pa. 15.
• p 1.960

  Ibid.
• q 1.961

  Ibid. pa. 17▪
• r 1.962

  Ibid. pa. 15.
• s 1.963

  Censura Fro∣gerii. de lib. Becani. ibid. pa. 23. 24.
• t 1.964

  Censura Claud. Aqua••••iu. de lib. Becan. ibid. pa. 22.
• u 1.965

  Censur. Card. Bell••rmini de libro Becani. ibid pa. 10.
• x 1.966

  Censura Pau∣li 5. de lib. Be∣can. ibid.
• y 1.967

  Bellar. l. b. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 1.
• z 1.968

  Catholioi Theologi.
• a 1.969

  Vt supra ostensum est. ca. 1.
• b 1.970

  Nichol. Card de Art. M. s. fol. 61.
• c 1.971

  Ibid. fol. 61. & seq.
• d 1.972

  Ibid. in Tit. lib.
• e 1.973

  Ibid. fol. 46. & seq.
• f 1.974

  Idem fol. 88.
• g 1.975

  Ibid. fol. 46.
• g 1.976

  Ibid. fol. 74.
• b 1.977

  Sciop. in 540 Ecclesiast. ca. 46. pa. 15••.
• c 1.978

  Amb. Ca∣thar. in cap. 13. ad Rom. §. Verum.
• d 1.979

  Ioh. Maior in 4. Sentent. dist. 24. q. 3. Concl. 3.
• c 1.980

  Ioh. Igneus Repet. in le. Donationes. nu. 28.
• d 1.981

  Guil Bened. in repet. cap. Rai••u••ij De∣cil. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 27. 28.
• e 1.982

  Aegid. Rom quaest. de vtra∣que Potestat. artic. 5.
• f 1.983

  Lib. eod. art. 4.
• g 1.984

  Cassan. Ca∣tal. glor mun∣di part. 5. con∣sid. 24 nu. 179.
• h 1.985

  Idem. part. 5. cons. 31. §. 1
• i 1.986

  Ibid. §. 2.
• k 1.987

  Cap. Per Venerabilem, extr. qui fil. sint Legi••.
• l 1.988

  Cassan lib. cit. Cons. 28. §. Ex quo etiā.
• m 1.989

  Li••erae Phi∣lippi apud Ni∣chol. Gillium in Phil. pulch.
• n 1.990

  Turrecrem. in Sum. de Ec∣cles li. 2. c. 113.
• o 1.991

  Fr. à Victor Relect 1. de potest. Eccles sec. 6. nu. 8.
• p 1.992

  D••m. Soto. in 4. sent. dist. 25. q 2. art. 1. concl. 5.
• q 1.993

  Did. Couar. Pract. quaest. ca. 4. nu. 2.
• s 1.994

  Iuan de la Pu••nt. de la conueniencia de las dos Mo••arquias Catholicas. Cit. lib••i▪
• s 1.995

  Ioh Maior. in dist. 24 q. 3. §. Tertia con∣clusio.
• t 1.996

  Cass••n. in Cacal glot. mundi part. 5. Consid. 28. §. ••mo. etiam.
• u 1.997

  Gold. in su•• Repl c. 9. p 83.
• x 1.998

  Censura Tract, Baronij de Monar. Si∣cil. per Card. Colum.
• y 1.999

  Lib. cit. pa. 159.
• z 1.1000

  Ibid. pa. 161.
• a 1.1001

  D••ram ni∣mis vt is Ec∣clesiae monstrū dicatur & o∣ftentum ibid, p. ••5••.
• b 1.1002

  ••yrannus & Ecclesiae hostibus de terror. ibid.
• c 1.1003

  Occulta eū venetis consilia inijt, vt Caesa∣••em Mediola∣••o exueret. Onuph. in vit. ••lem, 7. pa. 400
• m 1.1004

  Imperator nihil prius ha∣buit quam ex∣ercitum in Ita∣liam mittere. Parahp. Abb. Vrsperg. ann. 1527.
• n 1.1005

  Ibid.
• o 1.1006

  Append. ad Chron. Naucl∣an. 1527. & Guiccard. lib. 18. hist. pa. 774.
• p 1.1007

  Onuph. loc. cit. pa. 402.
• q 1.1008

  Onuph. loc. cit. & Guic∣card lib. 18. pa. 782.
• r 1.1009

  Surius cōm. rer. in orbe gest. an. 1527▪ Card. Alan. in lib. ad Perse∣quutores Ang∣los. contra Iu∣stic. Britan.
• s 1.1010

  Paralip. ad Abb. Vrsper. an. cit. pa. 472.
• t 1.1011

  Guic. lib. 18 pa. 790.
• u 1.1012

  Guiccard. lib. 17 pa. 6. 8.
• x 1.1013

  Quae contra regem suum à pontificatus initio molitus fuerat sigilla∣tim aperiens. Onuph. in vit. Paul. 4. pa 451
• y 1.1014

  Guil. Para∣don. lib. de motibus Gal∣liae. apud Scard. to. 4.
• z 1.1015

  Carer & Tho Boz. cit. ca. 1. pa. 22.
• a 1.1016

  Fran à Vict. Relect. de In∣dis.
• b 1.1017

  Bell lib. 5. de Rom. Pontis. ca. ••. §. At A∣lexander.
• c 1.1018

  Benzo. Hi∣stor. noui or∣bis. lib. 3. ca. 3.
• c 1.1019

  Gil. Geneb. in sua Chron.
• d 1.1020

  Frank. dis∣course.
• e 1.1021

  Bract. de le∣gib. & consuet. Anglo. lib. 1. c. 8. nu. 2. 5.
• b 1.1022

  Cod. ille M. S extat in no∣bili Biblioth. Dom. Rob. Cottoni. & ci∣tat à Ioh. Pi∣chardo ad E∣pist. 83. lib. 3. Epist. Anselmi. & à Ioh. Speed in Chron. in vita Guil. Rufi.
• c 1.1023

  Math. Paris. in Guil. 2. an. 1094 §. Hoc.
• d 1.1024

  Ex Eadme∣ro citant tum Hollinsh chro. in Wil. Rufus. an. 1099. pa. 24. tum Speed. Chron. in Wil. Ruf.
• e 1.1025

  Hollinsh. loc. cit.
• f 1.1026

  Mat. Paris. loc. cit.
• g 1.1027

  Proposuit mihi Rex ne aliquando A∣postolicum ap∣pellarem. An∣sel. Epist. 40. lib. 3.
• h 1.1028

  Epist. An∣fel ni ad Pasca∣lem. Quae re¦••itatur in Act. & Monument. in Hen. 1. pa. 178.
• i 1.1029

  Vt ex Iornal. hist. & Walt. Couent. dicitur in Antiq. Brit. in Anselm.
• k 1.1030

  Ibid.
• l 1.1031

  Math. Paris. an. 1119. in initio.
• m 1.1032

  Math. Paris. in Hen. 2. ann. 1164. in initio
• n 1.1033

  Hanc recog∣nitionem Ar∣chiepiscopi, &c. cum pro∣ceribus cunctis iurauerunt, & firmiter pro miserunt ob∣seruandas, &c. Math. Paris. ibid. pa. 135. & Iho. Can∣tuar. cum eas leges obserua∣re iuramento firmasset. ibid. §. His itaque.
• o 1.1034

  Ibid. & §. Alexander.
• p 1.1035

  Sup. ca. 7.
• q 1.1036

  Math. Paris. loe. cit. §. Vi∣dens.
• r 1.1037

  De quo Rog. Houed. part. 2. post an. 1165. pa. 283. & Paris. loc. cit. pa. 137.
• s 1.1038

  Rog. Houed. loc. cit.
• t 1.1039

  Stat. an. 25. Ed. 1. quod re∣petitur. 25. Ed. 3.
• u 1.1040

  Vt vider•• est, in literis Edw. 1. ad Bo∣nisac. 8. apud Math. Westan. an. 1301.
• x 1.1041

  Vt liquet ex literis Bonifa∣cij 8. ad Edw. 1 apud Westmo. anno eodem▪
• y 1.1042

  Volumus quod tuos pro∣curatores & nuncios mittas &c. ibid.
• f 1.1043

  Literae Co∣mitum & Ba∣ronū Angliae, Bonif. 8. ibid ē apud Math. Westmonast.
• g 1.1044

  Stat. of Pur∣ueiers an. 25. Edw. 3. ca. 22.
• b 1.1045

  Stat. of Pro∣uisors, an. 25. Edw. 3.
• c 1.1046

  Stat. an 27. Edw. 3. ca. 1.
• d 1.1047

  Stat. an. 38. Edw. 3. ca. 1.
• e 1.1048

  Stat. an. 13. Ric. 2. ca. 2.
• f 1.1049

  stat. an. 16. Ric. 2. ca. 4. & 5.
• g 1.1050

  stat. ann. 2. Hen. 4 ca. 3.
• h 1.1051

  Ibid. ca 4▪
• l 1.1052

  1. Hen. 7. 10.
• m 1.1053

  Hollinsh. in Hen. 6. ann. 1460.
• n 1.1054

  2. Hen. 7. 10
• o 1.1055

  Stat. an. 24. Hen 8. ca. 12: & an. 25. Hen. 8. ca. 21.
• p 1.1056

  Stat 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• q 1.1057

  ••ust. Britan. pa. 49. & Pars▪ answer to Sir Edw. Coke, ca. 14. §. 15.
• r 1.1058

  Leg. Sancti Edw. ca. 19.
• s 1.1059

  Edgari ver∣ba extant in cod. M. S. lite∣r••s aur••is exa∣rato in Bibl D Rob. Cotton.
• t 1.1060

  Pars. triple Conuers. part. 1. ca, 4. nu. 22. & 29.
• u 1.1061

  If it be true and not fained by Mr. Fox ib. nu. 20.
• z 1.1062

  Vid. 6. part. Reports of Sir Edw. Coke in Praefat. & the•• Reports of Sir Iohn Dauis in Praefat.
• a 1.1063

  In omnibus nationum ••uarum (Bri∣tonum, Ro∣manorū, Sax∣onum, Dano∣rum, & Nor∣manorum) & regum earum temporibus, regnum hoc (Angliae) ••s∣dem quibus ••am regitur consuetudini∣bus continue regulatum est. Fo••tesc. de Polit. Angl. ca. 17.
• b 1.1064

  1. Hen. 7. 10
• c 1.1065

  2. Ric. 3. fol. 22.
• d 1.1066

  12. Edw. 4. fol. 16.
• e 1.1067

  14. Hen. 4. fol. 14.
• f 1.1068

  30. Edw. 3. lib. 3. Assis. pl. 19.
• g 1.1069

  5. Part of his Reports.
• h 1.1070

  Pars. answer to the 5. part of Reports set forth by Sir Edw. Coke.
• i 1.1071

  Spirituall power is a cō∣mission of bindeing and loosing. Pars. lib. cit. ca. 2. nu. 7. The spirituall Ecclesiasticall power consi∣steth in bind∣ing & loosing sinns, by means of sacraments, in iudging causes of the Church, it is a power to teach and direct, to punish by spi∣rituall censures of suspension, excommunica∣tion, &c. ibid. ca. 2. nu. 16. 17.
• k 1.1072

  They giue vnto her (Q. Eliz.) all & all manner of Iu∣risdiction, &c:
• l 1.1073

  Ibid ca. 3. nu. 23. The ab∣surditie of the statute, &c.
• m 1.1074

  Ibid.
• n 1.1075

  Pars. lib. cit. ca. 11. nu. 24. & ca. 12. nu. 15 & saepe alibi.
• o 1.1076

  An. 10. Hen. 2. verba Par∣liam. citantur à D. Edw. Coke in 6. part. Relat. in Praef.
• o 1.1077

  12. Edw. 4. fol. 16.
• p 1.1078

  12. Edw 4. fol. 16. & alibi.
• p 1.1079

  Pars. lib. cit. ca. 11. ••u. 22.
• q 1.1080

  Lib. eod. ca. 13. nu. 16.
• r 1.1081

  Ibid. nu 17
• s 1.1082

  Pa••s. answ to Sir Edw. Coke. ca. 2. nu. 7.
• t 1.1083

  Sir Edw. Coke 6. part of his Reports in Prae••at.
• a 1.1084

  Bed lib. 2. hist. Angl ca. ••
• b 1.1085

  Euseb. lib. 5 hist. ca. 24.
• c 1.1086

  Gregorij verba apud Be∣dam lib. 1. ca. 27 in Respons. 9.
• d 1.1087

  Bed. lib. 2. ca 2.
• e 1.1088

  Amad. Xi∣eriens▪ apud An••iq Britan. in August.
• e 1.1089

  Minitans p••aedixit. Bed. lib 2. ca ••.
• f 1.1090

  Ibid.
• g 1.1091

  Ibid.
• h 1.1092

  Galf. Mo∣numet. lib. 11 ca. 7.
• i 1.1093

  Antiq. Bri∣tan. in August. pa. 46.
• k 1.1094

  Baron. ann. 604. nu. 65.
• l 1.1095

  Bert. in sua Diatrib.
• l 1.1096

  Pars. triple. Conu. part. 1. ca. 8. nu. 27.
• m 1.1097

  Ibid nu. 28
• n 1.1098

  Lib. eod. ca. 9. nu. 4.
• o 1.1099

  Lib. eod. ca. 3 nu. 14.
• p 1.1100

  Euseb lib. 5. hist cap. 2••. 23
• q 1.1101

  Praedecesso∣res tui Enc ha∣ristiam mise∣runt Eccles••is, quae aliam cō∣suetudinem se∣quutae sunt. ait. Iren. Victori. ibid.
• r 1.1102

  Tert. lib. de praescrip. cap. 53. iuxt. Pam.
• s 1.1103

  Nec Policar∣po per••••adere potuit An••ce∣tus ne id re••••∣neret quod cum Iohanne obseruasset. I∣ren apud Eu¦seb. loc. cit. Io∣hannes Apo∣stolus, Policar∣pus. 14. Luna Pasca obserua¦bant Euseb. lib. cit. cap. 23.
• t 1.1104

  Ipsum est quod B. Iohan∣nes cum omni∣bus quibus praecrat Eccle∣siis celebrasse legitur. &, Io∣hannis Apo∣stoli exemplū sectamur. Beda lib. 3. cap. 25.
• u 1.1105

  Iohannes 14 die mensis pri∣mi incipiebat celebrationem sesti pascatis, nihil curans, an haec Sabba∣to an alia qu••∣libet feria pro∣neniter. Wilf verba ibid.
• x 1.1106

  Apud Euseb. lib. 5. Hist. ca. 24.
• y 1.1107

  Decret Nic∣synod. recita∣tur apud Eu∣seb. lib. ••. de vit, Constant. cap. 17. & 18.
• x 1.1108

  Conc. Nic. Can. 20.
• y 1.1109

  Bin. Not. in Concilium Ariminense.
• z 1.1110

  Episcopos Britanniae in∣terfuisse Con∣cilio Sardicen∣si, testatur, E∣pist Synodalis illius Conc. apud Athan. Apol 2. Tres ••tiam Britan∣niae, Epis. in∣ter••ui••••e Con∣cilio Arimi∣ne••si rest••tur▪ Sulp. Seuer. lib 2. hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.1111

  Amand. Xi∣erix. apud An∣tiquit. Brit. in August. Brito∣nes fuerunt Catholici.
• b 1.1112

  Pa••s. trip. Conu. part. 1. ca. 8. nu. 28. & ca. 9. nu. 3.
• c 1.1113

  A Iewish ce∣remonie obser∣ued against faith. ibid. ca. 8. nu. 27.
• c 1.1114

  Ibid. ca. 9. nu. 1. 2. 3. 6.
• d 1.1115

  Galf. Monu∣met. lib. 11. ca. 7.
• e 1.1116

  Verba Galf. citat. Pars. lib. eod. ca. 2. nu. 13.
• f 1.1117

  Pars. ca. 9. cit. nu 2.
• g 1.1118

  Sup. ca. 1.
• h 1.1119

  Pol. Virg. hist. Angl. lib. 4. §. Post hunc
• i 1.1120

  Bell. Apol. pro Tort ca. 4. §. Quanquam.
• k 1.1121

  Pol. Vir. loc. cit.
• k 1.1122

  Instrumen∣tum quod Mr. Sintius Came∣rae dom. Papae clericus, Nun∣cius Apostoli∣cae sedisin An∣glia ad Curiā apportauit. Cod. M. S. ante citat. fol. 41.
• l 1.1123

  Cod. M. S. legum antiq. Inter leges. St. Edw. fol. 35: extat in Bibl. D. Rob. Cot.
• m 1.1124

  Rog. Ho∣ued. Annal. part. 2. in Hen. 2. pa. 343.
• a 1.1125

  Charta saecu¦lis omnibus detestanda. Math. Paris. M. S. hist. mi∣nor in Ioh. §. Dum ita. De∣testabilis illa charta. Idem. hist. maior. an, 1245, §. Di••bus vero,
• b 1.1126

  Math. West. ad an. 1213.
• c 1.1127

  Sand de Schis. p. 29.
• d 1.1128

  Sir Thomas Moore in the suplication of soules.
• c 1.1129

  Paris. an. 1213 §. Rebus
• f 1.1130

  Westmon. an. 1213.
• g 1.1131

  In Bibl. D. Rob. Cotton.
• g 1.1132

  Exacta est a Rege & inno∣uata, illa non formosa sed samo••a subie∣ctio. Math. Pa∣ris An. 1213. §. Veniente.
• h 1.1133

  Charta prior caera signata fuerat, nunc au∣ro bullata est Paris. ibid. Verba Chartae sunt ista, per hanc chartam aurea bulla munitam.
• i 1.1134

  In Bib. prae∣dicta.
• k 1.1135

  Math. Par: an. 1245. §. Diebus.
• l 1.1136

  Polid. Virg. lib 15. §. His. dictis.
• m 1.1137

  De quibus vid. sup. part. 1. cu 8. pa. 170.
• n 1.1138

  Iurauit rex se iudicio Ec∣clesiae paritu∣rum, Math. Pa∣ris. an. 1213. §. Rex deni∣que.
• o 1.1139

  Sup. par. 1. ca. 8. pa. 169.
• p 1.1140

  Euglogium. Cod. M. S. in Bibl. D. Rob. Cotton.
• p 1.1141

  Iohannes nunquam fuit verus Rex. ver∣ba Philippi Regis Franc••∣ae. apud. Mat. West. an. 1216
• q 1.1142

  Hanc esse veram genea∣logiam filiorū Henr. 2. videre licet praeter ali∣os in Chron. Ioh. Speede in ••n Hen. 2. nu. 102. & seq. & in Chron. Hollinsh. in Hen. 2 pag. 115
• r 1.1143

  Speed Chr. in Ioh. nu. 19. & 20.
• s 1.1144

  Math Paris: Math. Westm. Hollins. Speede in Ioh
• t 1.1145

  Math Paris. an. 1241 §. Et circa. pa. 770. & Speede in Iohane. •• n 20.
• u 1.1146

  Lupol. de Iur. regni & Imp. ca. 14.
• x 1.1147

  Math. Paris. an. 1213. §. Charta itaqae & Speed in Chron. in Ioh. nu. 48.
• y 1.1148

  Math. Paris 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1231. §. Defunctae.
• z 1.1149

  Ibid.
• a 1.1150

  Innixus iuri & Appellatio∣nibus Stepha∣ni. ibib.
• b 1.1151

  Excuteret Angliam de sub iugo do∣mini Papae, &c. ibid.
• c 1.1152

  Verba Epist. Iohannis ad Innoc citantur in resp. ad A∣pol. Bellar. ca. 3. §. Frater.
• * 1.1153

  In illum in∣surgunt post∣quam ecclesiae satisfecit, qui assistebant ei∣dem quando ecclesiam of∣fendebat. in Epist. Innoc. 3. apud. Math. Paris. an 1214 §. Innocentius pa. 356.
• d 1.1154

  Derisioni∣bus multipli∣catis subsan∣nando dixerūt Math. Paris. an. 1215. §. His peractis.
• e 1.1155

  Idem. ann. 1216. §. Circa▪ h••••s.
• f 1.1156

  Math. West. an. 1216. & Math. Paris. hist. minor. M. S. in Iohan.
• g 1.1157

  Math. West. loc. cit.
• h 1.1158

  Math. West. & Paris. M. S. locis citat.
• i 1.1159

  Math. West. loc. cit.
• k 1.1160

  Math Paris. M. S. loc. cit.
• l 1.1161

  Ex Rotulo Parliam. an. 40. Ed. 3. nu. 8.
• n 1.1162

  Math. Paris. an. 1208. § Lo••doniensis.
• o 1.1163

  Idem. ann. 1209. §. Sub his.
• p 1.1164

  Idem ann. 1212. §. Circa hos.
• q 1.1165

  Math. Paris hist min. M. S. in Ioh. §. Dum ita.
• r 1.1166

  Westmon: an. 1213. & Math. Par an. eod. §. Anno 1213:
• s 1.1167

  Paris. loc. cit. pa. 310.
• t 1.1168

  Westm. loc. cit. ex parte do. Papae regi Francorum a∣lijs{que} iniunxe∣runt & idē ait Paris. pa. 311.
• u 1.1169

  Paris. loc. cit.
• x 1.1170

  Paris. & West. loc. cit.
• y 1.1171

  Paris. ann. 1213. §. His ita
• z 1.1172

  Idem an. eod. §. Rex Angl.
• a 1.1173

  Paris an. cit. §. Dum autem.
• b 1.1174

  Math. West. loc. cit.
• c 1.1175

  Paris loc. cit. §. Rex denique
• d 1.1176

  Ibid.
• e 1.1177

  Math. Paris. hist. min. M. S. §. Dum ita.
• f 1.1178

  Licet terra Interd••cta fu∣isset, (cum ad∣uenit Nicola∣us) &c. Math. Par hist. maior an. 1213. §. Eodem anno ci••ca. pa. 329.
• g 1.1179

  Cod. de Transaction. l. Interpositas.
• h 1.1180

  Honor. & Theod. Cod. de ijs quae vi & m••tu gesta ••••nt l. Vendi∣tiones.
• i 1.1181

  Math Paris. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1214. §. 〈…〉〈…〉
• k 1.1182

  Idem eod. an §. Innocen∣tius pa. 357.
• l 1.1183

  Bonif. in suis literis ad regē Angl. apud Math. Westm. an. 1301.
• m 1.1184

  Ab. Vsperg. an. 1112. Alb. Stad. et Naucl. eod. ann. & Conc. Later. sub. Pasc. 2.
• n 1.1185

  Ea est quae extat in Chro. Iohan: Spe••d.
• o 1.1186

  Card. Allan. admonit. to the Nobil. an. 1588. pa. 8. & cit. in Blackw▪ larg. examin. pa. 18.
• p 1.1187

  Bar. an. 1173 nu. 9.
• q 1.1188

  Bell. Apol. pro Tort. cap. 3 §. Extat.
• r 1.1189

  Bec. Contr. Angli. q. 9 nu. 1. 2. & seq.
• s 1.1190

  Grets in cō. Exeget. siue Ba∣sil. dor. ca. 5 §. si temporalia.
• t 1.1191

  Epist 136 in∣ter Epist Pet. Bla••s.
• u 1.1192

  Admonet pa∣pa Philippum ne permitter et Ludouicum Angliam ho∣stiliter adire vel Regē Ang∣lorum inquie∣tare in aliquo; sed ipsum vt Rom. Ecclesiae vassallum pro∣tegeret & de∣fenderet. Math Paris. an. 1216 §. Sub. his. pa. 375. Ecce qualiter patrimonium B. Petri Angli∣am ponti••ic••s defendunt, di∣cunt Barones, quorum inso: lentiam minis▪ & censuris cō∣pescit Innoc••ntius 3. in suis literis apud Math Paris. an. 1215. pa. 362.
• x 1.1193

  Paris. an. 1216 §. Tunc: dixit. pa. 381.
• y 1.1194

  Bulla Innoc. de qua supra.
• z 1.1195

  Epist. Hen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in M. S. cod. in Bib D. Rob. Cot.
• a 1.1196

  Galt. Chron. in saecul. 12.
• b 1.1197

  Rog. Ho••ed. Annal. part. 2. fol. 289 §. A∣mantissimo.
• c 1.1198

  Ille Thomas proditor. lite∣rae Henry 2. ad Episcop. Lon∣din. apud Math. Paris. an. 1149. §. Per Idem: & ad Lu∣dou. Regem Franc. scrip∣sit ne inimi∣cum suam ac proditorem Thomam ••o∣ue••et. lit. Henr. apud Westm. 1168. & saepe alibi.
• d 1.1199

  Literae. Hen. 2. ad Frid. Im∣per. apud Westmonast. loco citato.
• e 1.1200

  Rog. Ho••ed lib. cit. fol. 284.
• f 1.1201

  Ibid. fol. 290.
• g 1.1202

  Ibid. fol. 287.
• h 1.1203

  Ibid. fol. 303
• i 1.1204

  Ibid.
• k 1.1205

  Georg. Blackw. in his large Exa∣minat. pa. 18. 19 & 20. He must needs acknow∣ledge his ouer∣sight in that point.
• l 1.1206

  Epist. Alex. 2 ext. apud. Bar. an. 1068. nu. 1.
• m 1.1207

  Christanou. Examen. Ca∣thol. sol. 33.
• n 1.1208

  Cassaneus citat. apud E∣pisc. Roffe. contra Bell. lib 1. ca. 8.
• o 1.1209

  Literae Bo∣nif. 8. extant a∣pud Math. Westmon. an. 1301.
• p 1.1210

  Literae Go∣mitum & Ba∣ronum Angl. extat apud. ••und. Westm. an. citato.
• q 1.1211

  Statute of Ireland. an. 10. Hen. 7. ca. 5.
• r 1.1212

  An. 32. Hen. 6 ca. 1.
• s 1.1213

  Stat. of Irel an. 16. Edw. 4. ca. 4. not prin¦ted, sed citat•••• in the first pa•• of the repor•• of Sir Iohn Dauis, in the case of Praemu∣nire fol. 87.
• t 1.1214

  Dom. Sot. in 4. Sent. distinc. 25. q. 2. art. 1. concl. 3. §. Quod si.
• t 1.1215

  Imperatorem ••••arum rerum adhuc ignarū. Opt. lib. 1. cont. Parm. pa. 28.
• u 1.1216

  Non Ausus est ipse iudica∣re. August. E∣pist. 162. & 166
• x 1.1217

  Aug. Epist. 166.
• y 1.1218

  Optat. loc. cit. & Epist. Constant. Miltiad. apud Euseb. lib. 10. ca. 5.
• z 1.1219

  Aug. in Bre∣uic. collat▪ die. 3. §. Quinto ergo.
• a 1.1220

  Aug. Epist. 166.
• b 1.1221

  Aug. Epist. 162.
• c 1.1222

  Idem Epist. 68.
• d 1.1223

  Aug. Epist 166.
• e 1.1224

  Aug. Epist. 162.
• f 1.1225

  Staplet. Counterblast. ca. ••9 pa. 17.
• g 1.1226

  Iustin. No∣vel. 133. in praefat.
• h 1.1227

  Sic legitur in antiquis Cod. & sic legendū agnoscit. Stap. in suo Coun∣terbl. ca. 19. p. 184. in non∣nullis edit. ali∣ter habetur.
• i 1.1228

  Conc. Gen. 8. Act. 1
• k 1.1229

  Is porro (Carolus) tantus Asinus, Sciop. c. ••47.
• l 1.1230

  Rescriptum Caroli ad Eli∣pandum. tom. 3. Conc. p. 425.
• m 1.1231

  Athel. in Ann. Franc. an 794. Reg∣hin. in eund. an. & Ado Vien. atque alij▪
• n 1.1232

  Hincm. lib. cont. Hincma. rum laudum. c. 20.
• o 1.1233

  Athel. loc. ci••▪
• p 1.1234

  Steuc. lib. de Donat. Const. p. 111.
• q 1.1235

  Eck. in Eu∣chir c. de Ima∣ginibus.
• r 1.1236

  Bell. lib. 2 de Concil. c. 8 §. Primo qu••a.
• s 1.1237

  Ibid. §. Quod autem.
• t 1.1238

  Nam eodem ord••ne cum Ariminensi censetur Praef. lib 1 Carol. p. 97.
• u 1.1239

  Ibid.
• x 1.1240

  Secundum quod continet Epist. ••. Gre∣gorij ad Sere∣num. lib. 4. c. vlt.
• y 1.1241

  Greg. Epist. 9. lib. 9▪ Indi. 4
• z 1.1242

  Had. 1 Epist 3. quae est ad Carolum. c. vlt
• a 1.1243

  Cod. lib. 1. de veteri iure Eccl.
• b 1.1244

  Hinc. loc. cit▪
• c 1.1245

  Synod Paris. sub Ludouico & Lothario in principio.
• d 1.1246

  Bell. lib de Concil. c. 8 §. Primo quia.
• e 1.1247

  Iac. Alm. lib. de Potest. Eccl & lai••. 1. q. 1. c. ••4. §. De In∣st. niano.
• f 1.1248

  Dist. 63. c. Had••ianus.
• g 1.1249

  Sigon. lib. 4. de reg. Italan principio.
• h 1.1250

  Eutrop. ••on∣gobar. tract. de Iuris & priu. Imper.
• i 1.1251

  Deus Romam Ecclesiae dona∣uit, & hunc corpori suo ve∣lut cibum hanc gregi suo cau•• •• am daturū se promisit Sciop. Eccles. ca. 51.
• k 1.1252

  Cuiusmodi Asini simus nos Catholici. Sciop. lib. cit. ca. 14••. pa. 534 in marg.
• l 1.1253

  Ca. ••od. pa. 537.
• m 1.1254

  Bar. an. ••01 nu. 10.
• n 1.1255

  Dist. 19. ca. In memoriam.
• o 1.1256

  Post. in Gratiane.
• p 1.1257

  Burchardus citat. ex concil. Triburiensi. Nota Gregor. ad ca. citat.
• q 1.1258

  Conc. Tri∣bur. ca. 30. to∣tidem omnino verbis decretū illum habet, vt apud Gratia∣num citatur.
• r 1.1259

  Conc. Trib. habitū est an. 895. Carolus obij•• an. 814.
• s 1.1260

  Conc. Trib. in prooemio.
• t 1.1261

  Ab Episcopis decretum illū factum iudi∣cant, illa verba quae nobis est mater Ecclesi∣asticae dignita∣tis.
• l 1.1262

  Litpr. lib 6. ca. 6. 7. & seq.
• m 1.1263

  Epist. Hadr. extat. apud Ra∣deu lib 1. cap. 9 & apud Nauc. an. 1155.
• n 1.1264

  Radeu. loc. cit. & ca. 15.
• o 1.1265

  Epist. Frider. extat apud Ra∣deu lib. 1. ca. 10. & Naucl. an. citato.
• p 1.1266

  Apud. Naucl. ••oc. cit.
• q 1.1267

  Trit. in Chr▪ Hirsang. an. 1244.
• r 1.1268

  Epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••a∣pud 〈…〉〈…〉 vinc••. Epist. 3. lib. 1••
• s 1.1269

  Alber. ••. Bene à Zeo••e tit▪ de Quadrien. prae••c.
• t 1.1270

  Hier. Balb. l••b de Coronat. pa 65.
• u 1.1271

  Cuspin. in Carolo. 4.
• x 1.1272

  Gunthari decretum ex∣tat inter Im∣periales. Con∣stit tom. 3. p. 414.