A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

That matters of faithe, and ecclesiastical causes are not to be iudged by the Ciuile Magistrate. The. 14. Chapter.

Iewel. Pag. 637.

That a Prince, or magistrate maie not lavvfully calae Prieste before him to his ovvne seate of Iudgement, or that many Catholique, and godly Princes haue not so done, and done it lavvfully, it is most vntrue.

Harding.

I haue tolde you M. Iewel, that the duetie of Ciuil Princes consisteth in Ciuil maters, and euer said, that Bishoppes ought to be obedient to Princes in suche cases, whither so euer they cal them. And if they make any temporal Decree, the Bishoppe, who hath temporal goodes vnder the Prince, must obey without grudge, or gaine saying, so farre as the Decree standeth with the ho∣nour of God. But that in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faith, mere temporal Princes haue any authoritie of them selues to cal Bishoppes and Priestes to their Seates of Iudgement, or euer did it lawfully: we vtterly denie. S. Ambrose said to the Emperour Valentinian: Nec quis∣quàm contumacem iudicare me debet, quum hoc asseram, quod augustae memoriae patertuus non solùm sermone respon∣dit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei, vel ecclesia∣stici alicuius ordinis, eum iudicare debere, qui nec mu∣nere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: Haec enim verba Rescripti sunt. Hoc est, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare.

Quinetiam si aliâs quoque arguerelar Episcopus, & morum

esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopule iudi∣cium pertinere. Neither any man ought to iudge me as stubborne, seing I affirme that, whiche your father of most renoumed memorie not onely answered in worde, but also established by his lawes: that in a case of faith, or any ecclesiastical order, he ought to be iudge, that is nei∣ther vnequal in office, nor vnlike in right, or authoritie: For these are the wordes of the Rescripte. That is, he would Priestes to be iudges of Priestes. And also, if o∣therwise a Bishop were reproued, and a cause concer∣ning behauiour and manners were to be examined, he would this cause (of manners) also to apperteine to the Bishoppes iudgement.

Vpon these wordes of Theodosius, alleged, and allo∣wed by S. Ambrose, thus I reason with you M. Iewel. He can not be iudge of Bishoppes and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faithe that is vnequal in office, or vnlike in right and authoritie. But the Prince is vnequal to the Bishop in office, and vnlike vnto him in right and autho∣ritie: (For he hath no right nor authoritie to sacrifice, to preache, to binde, to loose, to excommunicate, and mini∣ster Sacramentes) Therefore the Prince can not be iudge of Bishoppes, and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in any ecclesiastical cause, or mater of Faith.

Againe, no man hath authoritie ouer his superiour: But the Bishop, in maters of Faithe, and Ecclesiastical causes, is superiour to euery Prince: Therefore in those causes the Prince hath no authoritie ouer the Bishop. And if he haue no authoritie ouer him, he can not cal him to his seate of iudgement.

Furthermore, were it true, that the Prince were equal with the Bishop in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of faith, yet could he not cal him to his seate of iudgement, quia par in parem non habet potestatem, bicause the equal hath no authoritie, or power ouer his equal. But to see M. Iewels arte in facing out this mater, let vs consider the authorities, that he bringeth to proue his purpose. And bicause he blaseth this saying in the toppe of his margent with great letters. A Bishop conuented before the Magi∣strate, let vs first define, what it is to be conuented before a Magistrate.

The lawiers saie, Conuenire, est aliquem in ius vocare, To conuent a man, is to cal him into the lawe: and so Conueniri coram magistratu, est in ius vocari à magistratu, to be conuented before a magistrate, is to be called into the lawe by the magistrate. To cal a man into the lawe, is a iudicial acte, proceding of superiour authoritie in him that is iudge, both of the partie so called, and also of the cause, wherefore he is called. As if the Maior of London would conuent any of the Citizens, he must both haue iurisdiction ouer that Citizen, and also authoritie to iudge in that cause, for whiche the Citizen shal be conuented. But no ciuil magistrate hath authoritie by vertue of his temporal office, to be iudge our Bishoppes in ecclesiasti∣cal causes, as it is before proued, and shal hereafter ap∣peare: Therefore no temporal magistrate can conuent any Bishoppe, or Priest before him, in any Ecclesiastical cause. But let vs heare M. Iewel.

Iewel. Pag. 637.

Iustinian the Emperour him selfe, vvho of al others most enlarged the Churches priuileges, saith thus: Nullus Episcopus inuitus ad ciui∣lem

vel militarem iudicem in qualibet causa producatum, vel exhibeatur, nisi princeps iubeat. Let no Bishop be brought, or pre∣sented against his vvil before the captaine, or Ciuil Iudge, vvhat so euer the cause be, onlesse the Prince shal so commaunde it.

Harding.

Seing Iustinian (as you saie) of al others did most en∣large the Churches Priuileges, is it likely, that he would most of al others breake them? And whereas he made a lawe, that, Clerici apud proprios Episcopos conueniantur pri∣mùm, Clerkes shoulde be conuented first before their owne Bishoppes, in causa pecuniaria, in a money mater, and afterwarde before the Ciuil Magistrate, if either for the nature of the cause, or for some other difficultie the Bishop could not ende it: yet he addeth priuilegijs omni∣bus custodit is, quae reuerend issimis Clericis sacrae praestant cō∣stitutiones, al Priuileges kepte, whiche the Emperours lawes doo graunt vnto the reuerend Clerkes, And saith farther, Si verò Ecclesiasticum sit delictum, egens castigatio∣ne ecclesiastica, & mulcta, Deo amabilis Episcopus hoc discer∣nat, nihil communicantibus clarissimis prouinciae Iudicibus. Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire ciuiles iu∣dices, quum oporteat talia ecclesiasticè examinari, & emen∣dari animas delinquentium per Ecclesiasticam mulctam, se∣cundùm sacras & diuinas regulas, quas etiam sequi nostra non dedignantur leges: If the faulte be ecclesiastical, and neede ecclesiastical pounishment, and discipline, let the wel beloued Bishop of God iudge and discerne it, and let not the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle with it at al. For it is not our pleasure, that Ciuil Magi∣strates haue at al the examination of suche matters, seing suche matters must be examined ecclesiastically

after the order of the Canons, and the offenders must be punished by Ecclesiastical discipline, according to the holy and diuine Canons, whiche our lawes doo not dis∣daine to folow: Seing Iustinian hath so ordeined, no wise man that hath read his Lawes, wil saie, that either he in fringed those Priuileges, or, as one contrarie to him selfe, made a lawe against the Liberties of the Churche, without any mention of the former, that he him selfe had made. Wherefore Iustinian in the Law, that you reherse M. Iewel, is to be vnderstanded, to speake of ciuil, and tē∣poral cases: and that in those cases no Bishop should be brought before the Lieutenant, and Ciuil Magistrate, ex∣cept the Prince so commaunded it.

Now, whereas you vpon those wordes say, that a Bis∣shop maie be conuented before a Ciuil Magistrate, we graunt, and euer so said, that in Ciuil causes, and temporal maters, of which Iustinian speaketh, Bishops may be cō∣uented before a temporal Magistrate. But that is not our question. But this is that which we say, that it is not law∣ful for a Prince, to cal a Priest to his seate of iudgemēt in Ecclesiastical causes. And in this your owne authour Iu∣stinian condemneth you. He saith, as you heard before: Si ecclesiasticū sit delictū, &c. If the faulte be ecclesiastical, let the welbeloued Bisshop of God iudge and discerne it. Let the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle nothing at al with it. For we wil not, that Ciuil Magistrates haue the ex∣amination of suche matters. And againe. Si verò cri∣men sit Ecclesiasticum, episcopalis erit examinatio, & ca∣stigatio. If the faulte be Ecclesiastical, the examina∣tion, and pounishing of it shal apperteine vnto the Bis∣shoppe.

But peraduenture you wil replie to this, and saie, that Iustinian in the lawe by you rehersed, speaketh not onely of Ciuil, but also of ecclesiastical causes, and wil∣leth a Bishop, in qualibet causa, in any cause, to be con∣uented before the temporal magistrate, if the Prince do so commaunde. If you, or your lawier make this obie∣ction, we answer, that it can not be shewed out of al Iu∣stinians lawes, that he willed a Bishop, or Prieste to be conuented before a temporal Magistrate in an Ecclesia∣stical cause, or to be pounished for any hainous offence, before he were degraded of his Bishop. And hereof, if you had but a meane smattering in the Ciuil Lawe, you could not be ignorant.

Besides that already alleged, you find in the Code this Lawe: Statuimus vt nullus Ecclesiasticā personam in crimi∣nali quaestione vel ciuili trahere ad iudicium seculare praesu∣mat contrae cōstitutiones imperiales, & canonicas sanctiones. We ordeine and decree, that no man presume to bring any Ecclesiastical person to the seate of iudgement of any seculare Magistrate in a criminal, or ciuil cause, contrarie to the Imperial Constitutions, and canonical Decrees. By this you see, that it is against both the Em∣perours constitutions, and Canons of the Churche, that a Bishop should be conuented before a Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause. As for the vantage which you seeke in those wordes, In qualibet causa, in any cause, it is none at al. Had not you benne blinded with ma∣lice, and your lawier with ignorance, you might haue learned, that it is a Maxima, and a Principle with the lawiers, that, Leges tales indefinitè loquentes, in∣telligendae sunt secundùm aliam legem speciatim loquentem.

Such lawes speaking indefinitely, must be vnderstanded by an other lawe, that speaketh specially and particular∣ly. Wherefore seing the lawe, Clericus, in the Code, and the Antentike, vt Clerici in the new Constitutions, make special mention, that Bishops, and Priestes should not be conuented before Ciuil Magistrates in Ecclesia∣stical causes, and permitte no temporal Iudge to med∣dle with Ecclesiastical personnes, excepte it be in Ci∣uil matters, and that with a Limitation, and a Prouiso also: it had ben your parte, and your blinde Lawiers al∣so, to haue vnderstanded those wordes, In qualibet cau∣sa, in any cause, spoken there indefinitely, by the other Lawes, that speake more specially. But then had you lost a peeuish sophistical Argument, and menne had not knowen your worthy skil in the Lawe: which no doubte wil appeare great by your practise.

Iewel. pag. 637. & 638.

The Emperour Martianus cōmaundeth, if the cause be criminal, that the Bisshop be conuented before the Lieutenant, vt coram Praeside con∣ueniatur.

Harding.

For your credite touching Martianus commaunde∣ment, you referre vs to the Code of Iustinian. As for the first, you may tel your lawier that he hath fouly decei∣ued you, and therefore is not worthy to haue his fee. That lawe, Si qui ex consensu, Cod. de Episcop. Audient. was neuer made by Martianus the Emperour, but by Arcadius, and Honorius, and requireth neither Bishop, nor Prieste, nor Clerke to be conuented before the Lieu∣tenant, but declareth, that if any by mutual consent, wil haue their matter debated before the Bishop as an arbi∣ter,

it shal be lawful for them so to do, as euery man that either considereth the law, or readeth the Summe set be∣fore it, may easily see.

As for the other lawe, Cum Clericis, although it be Martianus decree, yet hath it not those wordes, vt coram Praeside conueniatur, that the Bishop be conuented before the Lieutenant, nor any clause or sentence sounding to that pupose. For trial whereof I referre me to the booke, and to any indifferent man, that can reade, and vnder∣stande it.

But suppose it to be true, that the Emperour Martia∣nus had geuen suche a commaundement, what could it aduantage your cause M. Iewel? You should proue, that a Christian Prince may lawfully cal a Bishop to his Con∣sistorie for matters of Faith, and Ecclesiastical causes And not hable to do that, you tel vs like a Trifler, that, if the cause be criminal a Bishop may be conuented be∣fore the Lieutenant. And in so doing, you prooue that, which no man denieth. As Cranmare Archebishop of Cantorburie was called to the Princes Consistorie, and imprisoned in the Tower for treason against the Quenes Maiestie, and afterwarde degraded, and burned at Ox∣ford for heresie: So any Bishop for like treason, or like hainous and criminal offence, may not only be summo∣ned to the Princes seate of Iudgement, but also be cast into prison, and after degradation according to the Ca∣nons be depriued of his life. This we do not denie. But that whiche we denie, and you should prooue (for I must tel you one thing often bicause you are alwaies for∣getful of the very point that is in controuersie) is, that in matter of Faith, and in Ecclesiastical causes, a Prince

may cal Bishops to his consistorie, as their superiour and gouernour in Ecclesiastical causes. This is the matter in controuersie betwen you and the Catholiques M. Iewel. Let vs heare, how substanrially you proue that.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Pope Innocentius 3. him selfe confesseth, that the Pope may make a laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine in Priestes causes. The like hereof ye maie finde in your ovvne Glose, Papa laico delegat causam spiritualem. The Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a laie man.

Harding.

If any reason may be forced vpon the Authoritie of Innocentius, and the Glose to your purpose, it is this: The Pope may make a Laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine Priests causes: Ergo, Bishops and Priestes may be conuented before the Ciuil Magistrate in Ecclesiasti∣cal causes. But to vnrippe the rudenes of this Argument, imagine M. Iewel, that you were infamous for Simonie, and accursed for extorsion and vniuste exactions amon∣gest the clergie of Sarisburie Dioces vnder the name of a beneuolence towardes the setting vp of your howse: And that the Metropolitane hearing of it, fearing least great dishonour should rise to your Person, and infamie to the Gospel, as ye cal it, would haue the mater exami∣ned, and to that ende, sendeth a commission to the Ma∣ior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, and maketh them his De∣legates to examine, and enquire of your doinges, and that the Maior, and Bailiffes vppon vertue of that Commis∣sion from the Metropolitane conuent you before them: Al this then imagined to be true, shal it be said, that M.

Iewel was conuented in a cause of Simonie, and extor∣sion before the Maior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, as Ma∣ior and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, or as commissioners, and delegates from the Metropolitane? If you confesse that you were conuented before them, as the Metropolitanes Delegates, then must you confesse, that you were not conuented before them, as Maior, and Bailiffes of Sa∣risburie, and mere laie Magistrates. In like manner, when the Pope maketh a Laie man his delegate to heare and determine Priestes causes, the Priestes cause, whiche is hearde, and determined by that Laie man so delegated by the Pope, can not be said to be heard and determined by a Laie man, as a Laie man, but by the Popes Delegate. And seing, Delegatus gerit vices delegantis, a degate su∣steineth the steede of him, that geueth him commission, the Bishop, or Priest, who is conuented before the Popes delegate, shalbe said to be conuented before the Pope him selfe, and not before the Laie Magistrate, as a mere Ciuile and temporal Magistrate.

But what meane you M. Iewel thus to begyle your Readers with false allegations? Innocentius hath no such wordes, as you reporte, de Maior. & obedient. cap. 2. In∣nocent. Neither is the Decree that is there registred, the Decree of Innocentius, but of Gregorius, and nothing at al God wote to the purpose, for which ye allege it. More ouer the Glose brought out of the 11. cause, and first que∣stion, saith not, Papa Laico delegat causam spiritualem, the Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a Laie man, but, Si Papa, if the Pope doo committe a spiri∣tual mater to a Laie man. And what then M. Iewel? For∣sooth in that case a Clerke maie be conuented before a tem∣poral

Iudge. But that temporal Iudge is the Popes delegate, and deriueth his authoritie from him, as the Commis∣sioners in London haue their authoritie from the Queene. So that the exceptions there alleged by the glose, proue, ius commune esse in contrarium, that the common lawe is to the contrarie, that is, that no Bishop, or Prieste ought to be conuented before a Ciuile Ma∣gistrate.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Yea, further ye shal finde euen in the Popes ovvne Decrees, that the Pope hath committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard, and ended by a vvoman: and that Brunichildis, being a vvoman, by Vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bisshop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her.

Harding.

If the Pope did euer committe any spiritual cause to a woman, as you tel vs he did to Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce: then was the Queene of Fraunce by your Confession, the Popes commissioner in that cause, and Delegate, to heare, and ende that mater of Simonie. But what if we can not finde in the Popes Decrees, to whiche you referre vs, that the Pope euer committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard, and ended by a woman, and that Brunichildis had neither commission from the Pope to summon a Bishoppe, nei∣ther euer summoned a Bishop to appeare and solemnely to make his purgation before her? What then shal we say, but that M. Iewel is a shamelesse falsifier, a decei∣uer of al that beleeue him?

The wordes of that Decree, being the woordes of S.

Gregorie, stand thus. Mennam verò reuerendissimum fratrem & coëpiscopum nostrum, post quàm ea, quae de e•…•… dicta sunt requirentes, in nullo inuenimus esse culpabilem: qui insuper ad Sacratissimum corpus beati Petri Apostoli, sub iureiurando satisfaciens, ab ijs quae obiecta fuerant eius opinioni, se demonstrauit alienum: reuerti illum purgatum absolutúmque permisimus: quia sicut dignum erat, vt si in aliquo reus existeret, culpam in eo canonicè puniremus: Ita dignum non fuit, vt eum adiuuante innocentia, diutius re∣tinere, vel affligere in aliquo deberemus. Purgationem tamen antè duobus sibi sacerdotibus iunctis, vbi accusator cessauerit, eundem ex se praebere tuo commisimus arbitrio. We licensed our most reuerende brother, and felowe Bishoppe Menna to returne home, after he had made his Purgation, and was assoiled of the crime laid to his charge, specially, sith that after long enquirie made con∣cerning those thinges, whiche were reported of him, we founde him culpable and blame worthy in none: And he him selfe besides making satisfaction vppon his othe at the moste holy body of the blessed Apostle S. Peter, hath declared him selfe to be free, and cleere from al those thinges, that were obiected to impaire his good name. For as it was conuenient, that we should seuerely haue pounished him according to the Canons, if he had benne giltie in any thing: So it was not meete, that we should staie him, or trouble him any longer, see∣ing his owne innocencie did so helpe him. Notwith∣standing we haue geuen charge, that he him selfe, ta∣king before two Priestes vnto him, make his purgation, when the accuser hath geuen ouer his action, before you at your arbitrement. Thus farre S. Gregorie.

But this proueth not your intente, and purpose M. Iewel. For I beseeke you Sir, where is it said in al this Decree, that the Pope committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman? Where is it said, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her? In the texte it is not, nor in the glose, that you so solemnely allege. Or if it were, had your lawier for∣gotte to tel you, or were you so simple, that you could not conceiue, that (whiche is commonly said) Maledicta est Glosa quae corrumpit textum, it is a cursed glose, that corrupteth the texte? But seeing you builde so muche vpon the Glose, let vs see, what the Glose saith.

Iewel. 638.

In your Glose vpon the same place, it is noted thus. Fuit tamen hoc nimium papaliter dispensatum. The Pope vvas to Popelike in this dispensation.

Harding.

To let passe your scoffing and ministerlike interpre∣tation, let vs come to the matter. What dispensation is it, that the Glose speaketh of? Why suffred you not the authour of the Glose to tel forth his whole tale? Ye alwaies make your aduantage among the vnlear∣ned of falsifying and corrupting your testimonies.

It followeth there, Quòd Episcopus expurgatus co∣ram Papa, cogitur adhuc coram muliercula se purgare: that a Bishoppe hauing made his purgation before the Pope, is forced to purge him selfe before a woman. And this is the dispensation, that the Glose misliketh,

as to popelike, according to your interpretation. But if either the Gloser had considered the reason that moued the Pope, or you, that followe the Glose, would haue marked the litle cause, that standeth by the Glose in the margent in the last printe of Paris, where it is said, hoc totum ideo fuit, vt fama eius clarior appareret: al this was done (by the wisedom of S. Gregorie) to the ende his good name might appeare more cleare: neither he would so rashly haue controlled S. Gregories order in that be∣halfe, nor you so fondly alleged it. And of a worde spo∣ken in ieast, as the Canonistes sometimes speake, you take a weake holde, as of a matter spoken in great soothe.

Notwithstanding you wil saie, the wordes of the Decree are plaine, tuo cōmisimus arbitrio. We haue geuen a commission to your arbitriment, that he purge him selfe before you. If you make this obiection, we answer, that if the wordes were exactely sifted by the true and grammatical construction, you would hardly maineteine this interpretation. But I wil not contende about wordes. Let it be, as you would haue it. Let Brunichildis haue a commission from the Pope to see, that Bishop Menna made his purgation before her. Your purpose and saying is nothing proued by it. For first you saie, The Pope com∣mitted a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman. And this is a vaine tale, and vn∣true fansie of yours, not hable to be gathered by any worde of that decree. For the cause of Simonie where∣of Menna was accused, was heard, and ended by the Pope, and he not founde faultie in it, was absolued, and sent home. And a cause once heard, and determined by the Pope, is not wonte to be committed afterward to

the hearing, and determination of a woman.

After this, as though this lie had not ben lowde ynough, you tel vs, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her: and for your credite you referre vs in the margent to Gratian. 2. q. 5. Mennam. But that Brunichildis did either summon a Bis∣shop, to witte, Menna, to appeare, or required him to make his purgation before her, it is not to be found there, nor any where elles, that M. Iewel hath alleged, or can allege, as I doubte not. For Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce being so holy, so vertuous, so religious a Lady, as S. Gregorie reporteth she was: it is to be presupposed, that she would not disquiet a good and an innocent man, nor put him to farther trouble, who, when his cause was heard, and ended by the Pope, was founde in nullo culpa∣bilis, blame worthy in nothing that was laid to his charge, by the euident testimonie of S. Gregorie declared in his epistle sent of purpose to Queene Brunichildis. Where∣fore M. Iewel these fantasies of yours are but wanton and vaine, emploied to none other ende, but to deceiue the vnlearned.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

The Emperour Constantinus vvrote thus vnto the Bishoppes, that had ben at the Councel of Tyrus. Cuncti, quotquot Synodum Tyri compleuistis &c. Al ye that haue ben at the Councel of Tyrus, come vvithout delaie to our campe, and shevve me plainely, and vvithout colour, hovv vpprightly ye haue delte in iudgemement, and that euen before my selfe, vvhom ye can not denie to be the true seruant of God.

Harding.

These letters were written by the Emperour Constan∣tinus

to Arian Bishoppes, that had made a false conuen∣ticle or conspiracie, (and not a lawful Councel M. Iewel) at Tyrus: and they were written vnto them vppon the complainte of S. Athanasius that worthy Patriarke of Alexandria, made both against the iniuries, and violences, that Flauianus Dionysius the Emperours Lieutenant at∣tempted against him, and also against the sclaunders, that his enemies the Arians had wrongfully laied to his charge. And these sclaunders were not of Faithe maters, but that Athanasius had murdered one Arsenius, and had committed a foule rape with a woman, and that with an Arme cut of from Arsenius bodie, he practized Witche crafte: for the whiche crimes these Arians sought Athanasius death. Wherefore no marueile, if that good Emperour being Gods minister to see iustice ministred, and the Violences, and iniuries of his Lieutenantes and Officers pounished, and these ciuil causes of Felonie, Murder, and Rape to be truely and thoroughly exami∣ned, ad vindictam malorum, to the reuenge of malefa∣ctours, wrote his letters to al them, that had ben at the foresaid conuenticle at Tyrus, and required them to ap∣peare before him, as before the syncere minister of God, and to render accompte of their dealing against Athanasius in those Ciuil cases. For he might wel doo it, and nothing further M. Iewel in proufe of his de∣sperate cause, that a Bishoppe was conuented in ma∣ters of Faith, and ecclesiastical causes, before the Ciuil Magistrate, as his lawful, and ordinarie Iudge.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Iustinian the Emperour in the lavve, that he maketh touching the

publique praiers of the Churche, saith thus, we commaunde al Bi∣shoppes and Priestes to minister the holy oblation, and the prayer at the holy Baptisme, not vnder silence, but with suche voice, as maie be heard of the faithful people, to thintente the hartes of the hearers, maie be stirred to more Deuotion, &c. Aftervvarde he addeth further. And let the holy Priestes vnder∣stand, that if they neglecte any of these thinges, they shal make answere therefore at the dreadful iudgement of the great God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christe, And yet neuerthelesse we our selues vnderstanding the same, wil not passe it ouer, nor leaue it vnpounished. Hereby vve see, that Godly princes maie sum∣mone Bishoppes to appeare before them, euen in causes Ecclesiastical, to re∣ceiue such pounischement, as they haue deserued.

Harding.

For answere to this, or any thinge that you can bring out of Iustinian, for breuities sake, I referre you to Iusti∣nian him selfe. By whose constitutions, and Godly lawes, it maie easily appeare, how farre he was from claiming superioritie ouer Bishoppes, or gouernment, as supreme iudge in causes Ecclesiastical, as he who decreed ac∣cording to the definitions of the 4. general Councelles, that in Spiritual causes the Pope of the elder Rome should be taken for the chiefe of al Priestes, and ad∣uertised Pope Iohn, that there should be nothing mo∣ued perteining to the state of the Churche, but that he would signifie it to his Holinesse, being Heade of al Churches, and declared, that in all his Lawes, and dooinges for matters Ecclesiastical, he gaue place to the holy Canons made by the Fathers, and willed, that when any Ecclesiastical matter were moued, his Laie

officers should not intermelde, but suffer the Bishoppes to ende it according to the Canons.

In this very Constitution whiche you haue alleged, with these special wordes he committeth the Iudge∣ment, and pounishment of al sortes of offences commit∣ted by them of the Clergie, to such as the Canons haue put in authoritie. Thus he decreeth. Quotiescunque ali∣quis vel Sacerdotum, vel Clericorum, vel Praesulum, vel Mo∣nachorum, vel de fide, vel de turpi vita, vel quòd contra sa∣cros aliquid Canones peregerit, accusatus fuerit, si quidem is, qui accusatus, Episcopus fuerit, huius Metropolitanus, ea, quae proferentur examinato: Si verò Metropolitanus, bea∣tissimus Archiepiscopus, sub quo censetur: si Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut alius Clericus, aut Praesul Monasterij, aut Mo∣nachus, Religiosissimus Episcopus, sub quo hi censentur de∣lata in accusationem examinato, & veritate cōprobata, vnus∣quis{que} pro modo delicti Canonicis censuris subijcitor iudicio eius, qui causae examinationem accommodat. As often as any either of the Priestes, or of the Clerkes, or of the Prelates, or of the Monkes is accused, either of faith, or of filthy life, or that he hath done ought against the holy Canons, in case, he that is accused, be a Bishop, let his Metropolitane examine the thinges, that shal be laid to his charge: if he be a Metropolitan, let the Archebi∣shop, vnder whom he is, haue the examination: If he be a Priest, or a Deacon, or some other Clerke, or a Prelate of a Monasterie, or some Monke, let the Bi∣shop, vnder whose iurisdiction they are, examine the thinges that be laid in accusation. And when the truth is tried out, let euery one abide the Censures of the Ca∣nons for the rate of the faulte by the iudgement of him,

that sitteth vpon the examination of the matter.

Againe how farre he was from the minde and wil that Bishops, or any other whatsouer Ecclesiastical per∣sonnes should be summoned to appeare before him, or his temporal officers in iudgement for any Ecclesiastical cause, this expresse Decree, which there also ye might haue founde, sufficiently witnesseth. Si Ecclesiasticum ne∣gotium sit, nullam Communionem habento Ciuiles Magistra∣tus cum ea disceptatione, sed Religiosissimi Episcopi secun∣dùm sacros Canones negotio finem imponunto. If the mat∣ter be Ecclesiastical (that is to be iudged) let the Ciuile Magistrates haue nothing to doo with it: But let the most Religious Bishoppes make an ende of it according to the holy Canons.

By these, as also by the purporte of sundrie other Iu∣stinians constitutions, ordinances, and decrees, al menne maie see, that he neither chalenged any supreme domini∣on ouer Bishops, and Priestes in Ecclesiastical causes, nor enacted this, nor any other lawe, as chiefe Gouernour of the Churche, but followed the holy Councels, and willed the Canons to take place, and confirmed that, which was decreed by them.

For special answer then to this special obiection made out of the 123, constitution, I saie that Iustinian threat∣ned to pounishe them with the seueritie of temporal lawes, who would not be conteined in their duetie by Ecclesiastical discipline, and order of the Canons, that feare might force, where loue and conscience could not binde. Which policie we doo not mislike, seing (Duo vincula fortius ligant) two bondes binde faster then one.

To be shorte, Iustinian leaueth the correction of

Clerkes offending in any thing against the Canons, to the cēsures of the Canons. And if any refuse to abide the order appointed by the Canons, and vtterly shake of the yoke of the Canons: then, that is to say, in the case of ex∣treme stubbornesse, and contempte of the Canons, like a Godly prince, he threateneth reuenge, and pounish∣ment. In which case the Church doth now cal, and al∣waies hath called for the aide of the Seculare Arme a∣gainst those, that vtterly refuse to be corrected by the censures of the Church, and seeme incorrigible.

So neither by the lawes of Iustinian, neither by the example of Brunichildis, neither by the Gloses, that you so solemnely allege, it can not be seene, that Godly Princes might euer summone Bishops to appeare before them, to receiue any pounishment at their handes, as their superiours and supreme gouernours in ecclesiasti∣cal causes. Peraduenture if we put on eyes of better sighte, we maie see it hereafter, if wee diligently at∣tende, what you saie. Foorth therefore M. Iewel.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

The Emperour Constantinus in his letters to the people of Nicomo∣dia, speaking of the vvilful errours and heresies of Priestes, and Bi∣shoppes, saith thus: Illorum temeraria praesumptio, mea, hoc est, ministri Christi, manu coercebitur. Their rashe attemptes shalbe repressed by my hande, that is to saie, by the hande of Christes ser∣uant. So likevvise S. Augustine saith to the Donatistes: An fortè de religione fas non est vt dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Im∣perator? Cur ergo ad Imperatorem legati vestri venerant? Is it not lavvful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie shoulde pronounce in a case of Religion? VVherefore then vvent your ovvne Am∣bassadours to the Emperour?

Harding.

If you had said M. Iewel that Constantinus in his epi∣stle to the Nicomedians, had threatned to pounishe Bi∣shoppes, and Priestes, that were Arians, that is, cursed, and abominable heretiques, you had in some parte said the truthe. But where you saie, that he spake of the wilful errours, and heresies of Priestes and Bishoppes, and adde not Arian Priestes, and Arian Bishoppes, you conceele parte of the true Storie, and declare your malicious hart against Priestes, and Bishoppes. But to leaue that can∣kred spite of yours to the iudgement of God, why doo ye not report the Emperours wordes, as they are in your authour Theodoritus? Wil you neuer leaue this your accustomed vile corruption? Theodoritus saith not as you reporte, but thus: Quòd si quis audacter inconsultéque ad memoriam & laudē pestium illarū exarserit, illius statim au∣dacia, ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur. If any man be inflamed boldely and incircumspectly at the remembrance and cōmendation of those wicked and pe∣stilent heretiques, his boldenes shal be repressed straight∣waie by execution done by me, that am the minister of God. And these threatning wordes of the Emperour are to be referred to the people of Nicodemia, for to them the epistle was directed. And hauing tēporal iurisdiction, as power of life, and death ouer them, he put that terrour into their hartes, that they should be neither in loue, nor in admiration of those accursed Bishoppes, whom he had bannished for the Arian heresie. Or if M. Iewel wil haue those wordes of the Emperour to be referred, as wel to the Bishoppes, and Priestes, as to the laie people: Let him vnderstand, that, as it is lawful for any Prince to pounish heretiques that are excommunicate by the

Churche, and deliuered to the secular power, be they Bishoppes or priestes: So it was lawful for Constantine to pounishe these wicked Arian Bishoppes excommuni∣cated, and accused by the. 318. Bishoppes in the Councel of Nice. And as the prince that now as an executour of Iustice pounisheth heretikes by death, is not for that cō∣sideration, neither iudge in causes of heresie, nor supreme gouernour of the Churche: So Constantine at that time had no iurisdiction ouer Bishoppes in ecclesiastical cau∣ses, albeit he bannished them, and threatned them other pounishmēt, if they fel in loue of those cursed Arians. For the princes threatning of pounishment for heresie, is no argument to build a superioritie in ecclesiastical causes.

As for the place whiche you bring out of S. Augu∣stine, you brought it before in your Replie, to proue, that Emperours might receiue Appeales in ecclesiastical cau∣ses. And a sufficient answere was made vnto it in the Returne of Vntruthes vpon you. Why conceele you that? If you had ben studious of the truthe for Goddes sake, you should haue yelded vnto it, or if you had iud∣ged it false, haue confuted it, and not let it passe in si∣lence, and now trouble the Reader with the same stuffe againe.

But peraduenture you wil saie, that you neuer sawe that booke, and therefore that you dissemble not the an∣swer. If it were credible, that you would not see a booke written directely against you, and one that tou∣cheth you so neare, this excuse were tolerable. But seing it hath no colour of truthe, there can be litle pre∣tended to saue you from the gilte of dissimulation and hypocrisie in this case. I answere you therefore, as

he did S. Augustine spake in that place against the stub∣borne Donatistes, of whom Parmenianus was one, whiche complained that the Emperour Constantine, (eos ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duci iussit) commaun∣ded them to be brought foorth into the fielde, that is, to pounishement. And in reasoning against him, he tooke aduantage of his owne doinges, not as allowing the Ap∣peale to the Emperour, but as prouing him vnreasona∣ble, who for aduantage would appeale to the Empe∣rour, and when the Emperour had pronounced sen∣tence against him, would striue and repine at the sen∣tence, and saie, that he being a temporal prince, ought not to pounishe Bishoppes. Like as if you M. Iewel (hauing made the Queene supreme gouernour of your Churche) should saie, in case you were condemned of heresie, or of Simonie by the Prince, Her grace ought not to condemne me in these cases: a Catholique that flattereth her not with that title, would reason a∣gainst you, and saie: No sir? Is it not laweful for the Queene to condemne you in a case of heresie, and Simo∣nie? Why then made you the Queene supreme gouer∣nour of your Churche? Euen so did S. Augustine rea∣son against the Donatistes. And bicause by their ap∣peale to his Maiestie they had chosen him iudge in their cause, and after said, he could not condemne them: S. Augustine vsed their owne weapon against them, to cō∣uince their folie, and said as you saie. Is it not lawful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie should pro∣nounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your owne Ambassadours to the Emperour? &c. But as the Catholique reasoning in suche wise against you, can not

be said by that to allowe the Queenes supremacie: So S. Augustine in this talke against the Donatistes, can not be said to allowe the Emperours authoritie in condemning of Bishoppes, and other ecclesiastical causes. For he an∣swering an other Donatiste that said, Non debuit episco∣pus proconsulari iudicio purgari, a Bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal magistrate, said, If he be worthy to be blamed, whom the temporal iudge hath absolued, whereas he him selfe did not require it, how much more are they to be blamed, whiche would haue a temporal prince to be iudge in their cause? By this it appeareth that he thought, that Princes could not be iudges ouer Bishoppes.

Moreouer he reporteth, that Constantine, who ap∣pointed iudges to heare their cause, did it, à sanctis Anti∣stitibus veniam petiturus, as minding to aske pardon of the holy Bishoppes for his facte. And the same Empe∣rour seing their importunitie in repairing to him as iudge, said, O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Oh see the de∣sperate boldenesse of rage and furie. As if it were in the suites of Heathens, and Paganes, so these menne haue put vp their Appeale.

Nowe sir, if he had ben of the minde that you ima∣gine, or had thought it lawful for Constantine to heare, and determine ecclesiastical causes, or a right apper∣teining to his Emperial estate: he woulde not haue tolde vs, that he thought it a faulte to intermedle in suche matters, and therefore asked pardone of the holy Bishoppes. Neither would so wise an Empe∣rour,

seing those Bishoppes appealing in that cause, haue d••t••sted their doinges, and cried, O rabida furoris audacia, oh the desperate boldnesse of rage and furie. Wherefore M. Iewel, neither this facte of Constantine, nor that au∣thoritie of S. Augustine, can furder your pretended con∣uention of Bishoppes before Ciuil Magistrates. Let vs see what foloweth.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

But vvhat speake vve of other Priestes, and inferiour Bishoppes? The Popes them selues, notvvithstanding al their vniuersal povver, haue sub∣mitted them selues, and made their purgations before kinges and Empe∣rours. Pope Liberius made his humble appearance before the Emperour Constantius. Pope Sixtus before Valentinian. Leo the thirde before Caro∣lus Magnus, Leo 4. before Levves the Emperour. Iohn 22. vvas accu∣sed of heresie, and forced to recant the same vnto Philippe the French king.

Harding.

The higher euery good man is, the more humbly he behaueth him selfe. If then the Popes hauing an vniuer∣sal power ouer Christes Churche, did submitte them selues to Princes, and Emperours, they shewed muche humilitie in their hartes, and confidence in their causes: and proue against you M. Iewel, that if this submission had not ben made voluntarily by them, nor King, nor Caesar coulde haue had authoritie, or power to haue benne iudges ouer them: as you maie see by the exam∣ple of that good Emperour Constantine, refusing to be iudge ouer Bishoppes, and saying, Deus vos consti∣tuit sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis iudican∣di, & ideo à vobis rectè iudicamur, vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari, God hath appointed you Priestes,

and geuen you power to iudge of vs, and therefore we are rightly iudged of you, but ye can not be iud∣ged of menne, that is, of laie menne, and menne (as S. Ambrose reported of Theodosius, whiche I declared be∣fore) that are vnequal in office, and vnlike in autho∣ritie, and right. Of suche, Bishoppes maie not be iudged.

The Pope Liberius, you saie, made his humble appea∣rance before Constantius. It is true. But appearance is not purgation M. Iewel. You promised to tel vs of Po∣pes, that submitted them selues, and made their pur∣gations before kinges and Emperours, and beginning with that good Pope, you forgette your selfe, and for making of a purgation, you tel vs of making ap∣pearance. Whereby we gather, that either you passe not what you saie, or remember not what ye pro∣mise. Liberius dealing with Constantius the Arian Emperour at that appearance, was suche, as became a Bishoppe of the Apostolike See. For in that cause he would neither be ouerborne by the authoritie of the Emperour, nor yelde vnto his wickednesse against Atha∣nasius for a longe time, muche lesse acknowledge him for his superiour, or iudge.

As for Pope Sixtus, it is certaine, that he made his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian. But he did it M. Iewel in Concilio, in a Councel of Bis∣shoppes, and not in a courte of the Prince. And he did it of humilitie to auoide the suspicion, and malice of his aduersaries, and not to geue any President to others to doo the like, nor to preiudicate the autho∣ritie

of the Apostolique See. These are his wordes in the place, that your selfe allege. Vnderstande ye, that I am falsely accused of one Bassus, and vniustly persecuted. Whiche the Emperour Valentinian hearing, commaunded a Synode by vertue of our authoritie to be assembled. When the Synode was assembled, I satisfying al with great exami∣nation, albeit I might otherwise haue escaped, yet auoiding suspicion, I made my purgation before them al, discharging thereby my selfe from suspicion, and from emulation and enuie, Sed non alijs, qui hoc noluerint, aut non sponte ele∣gerint, faciendi formam dans, But not geuing a presi∣dent to others to doo the like, that either shal not be willing, or wil not voluntarily choose this kinde of pur∣gation.

Lo M. Iewel, your owne authour condemneth you. Pope Sixtus made his purgation, not onely before Va∣lentinian, but, coram omnibus, before al Bishoppes, and others assembled in the Synode. And he did it not by compulsion of any superiour Authoritie, but of humi∣litie, to declare his innocencie, and not to geue any other a president to doo the like. And by this ye maie perceiue, that the Emperour had of him selfe nor autho∣ritie to cal that Councel, nor power to summone the Pope to his Iudgement Seate, nor any iurisdiction to force him to make his Purgation before his Maiestie. For al was done by the submission of the Pope. He consented to the Emperours calling of that Councel: he gaue him licence to heare his purgation, and to be iudge in that cause. And he that geueth an other authoritie and commission, is by natural reason higher: and

of greater power in that case, then he that receiueth the authoritie, and commission. Wherefore Pope Sixtus ma∣king his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian, can not be said to haue benne conuented before a laie Ma∣gistrate, as his superiour, and lawful iudge.

Concerning Leo the thirde, and Leo the fourth, their case is like. When they made their Purgation, the one said euen in the place, that you allege: hoc faciens, non legem prascribo caeteris, doing this, I doo not prescribe a lawe to force other menne to doo the like. The other gaue the Emperour licence to appointe Commissioners, to heare his cause, and submitted him selfe to their iudge∣ment, and therefore we saie the Emperour was not their iudge, nor superiour by any princely authoritie, but by these Popes permission, and appointement.

As for Pope Iohn the 22. (of whose errour you make muche a doo in so many places of your bookes) I haue said sufficiently before, in the Answer to your View of your Vntruthes. Fol. 64. & sequent. Where I haue decla∣red, how falsly you belie him, and wherein he erred touching the state of the Soules of the iust after this life. And here I saie againe, that it is most false, that euer he recanted any heresie before Philippe the Frenche king. In deede the errour whiche he helde, as his priuate opi∣nion, was condemned at the sounde of trompettes in presence of that king, as Gerson writeth: but that was done, before he was Pope.

Iewel. 639.

Your ovvne Glose saith, Papa potest dare potestatem Impe∣ratori vt deponat ipsum, & sese illi in omnibus subijcere.

The Pope maie geue the Emperour povver to depose him selfe, and maie in al thinges submitte him selfe vnto him.

Harding.

Be it that our Glose saith so M. Iewel, your Glose I might rather saie. For the Gloser seemeth to be your chiefe Doctour. There was neuer Diuine, that serued him selfe with the stuffe of the Glose, so muche as you doo. What inferre you vpon it? If you can like a good Logician frame this argument vppon that Glose: The Pope maie geue the Emperour authoritie to depose him selfe, Ergo, the Pope maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as one that through vertue of his temporal office, is his superiour in Ecclesiastical causes: let vs haue it in writing, and we wil returne you the like with as good consequence, and saie: The Queene may geue anie of her Lordes, and subiectes power to depose her from her roial estat, and to transferre it to an other: Ergo, shee maie be conuented before that Lord and subiect of hers, as one that hath authoritie to depose her of him selfe, without commission and authoritie from her grace. And if you finde fault with the sequele of this, find fault with the sequele of you own. For they are both like. The Law saith: Ex alterius persona, quis consequitur, quod non habet ex sua. A man getteth of an other-mannes person, that, which he hath not of his owne. Wherefore the Em∣perour hauing authoritie of the Pope to depose him, hath not that authoritie of him selfe, or any his Imperial po∣wer, but of the Pope. And seing Iudex delegatus à Papa gerit vices Papae, a Iudge delegated of the Pope, occupieth the roome of the Pope, the Emperour in this case shal

not depose him as Emperour, but as the Popes Vicege∣rent, and Delegate.

Iewel. Pag. 639.

Franciscus Zarabella saith, Papa accusari potest coram Impera∣tore de quolib••t crimine notorio: & Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei: The Pope maie be accused before the Emperour of any notorious crime, and the Emperour maie require the Pope to yelde an accompte of his faith.

Harding.

Neither Franciscus Zarabella, nor Franciscus Zaba∣rella (for so is his true name) saith as you reporte, that, Papa potest accusari coram Imperatore de quolibet crimi∣ne notorio, The Pope maie be accused before the Em∣perour of any notorious crime. Those wordes (coram Imperatore) before the Emperour, are of your owne interlacing, and be not in the Authour. You ought to be ashamed so fouly to corrupte your authours, and deceiue the people.

Againe Zabarella sayth not, Imperator requirere po∣test à Papa rationem fidei, the Emperour may require the Pope to yeelde an accompte of his faieth, They are your woordes Maister Iewel. That, whiche Za∣barella saith is thus. Si Papa est de haeresi suspectus, po∣test (Imperator) ab eo exigere, vt indiret quid sentiat de fide. that is, if the Pope be suspected of heresie (the Em∣perour) may require of him, that he declare, what he thinketh of the Faith. Nowe sir, to require a man to yeelde an accompte of his Faith, and to require him

to declare what he thinketh, are twoo diuerse thinges. For the one can not be donne, but by Superiour autho∣ritie: the other by waie of friendship and common cha∣ritie.

But as for Superiour authoritie, Zabarella alloweth the Emperour none ouer the Pope, nor graunteth, that he maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, but in an extreme necessitie, to witte, if there were two Popes at one time (as there were when he wrote this Trea∣tie whence you fetche your falsified sentences) and nei∣ther would yeelde vnto the other, nor the Cardinalles take order for the quiet gouernemente of the Churche in procuring a General Councel, and if he saw the An∣tipape to geue ouer his vsurped Authoritie: then the Emperour, whose duetie is to defende the Catholique Faithe, maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, saith Zabarella. His wordes are these.

Cùmergo deficit Papa, vel Cardinales, qui subrogantur Papae in Congregatione Concilij, vt dictum est in praece∣denti quaestione, ad ipsum Imperatorem, qui pars post prae∣dictos est praecipua, Concilij spectat Congregatio. Nec quenquam moueat, quòd Imperator est Laicus, vt ex hoc putet esse inconueniens, quòd se intromittat de clericis. Non enim semper prohibetur iudicare de clericis: sed tunc pro∣hibetur, quando non subest ratio specialis. Nam propter specialem rationem permittitur, vt ratione feudi. Hoc autem casu subest ratio specialis, imo specialissima, ne fides Catholica ruat, quod nimium periclitatur, diu permittendo pluralitatem in summo Pontificatu. In quo maximè est Im∣peratoris, & praecipuam habet potestatem. Nam permit∣tere plures in Papatu, est offendere illum fidei articulum,

vnam sanctam Catholicam, &c. Therefore when the Pope faileth, or the Cardinalles, who are nexte in roome vnto the Pope substituted to the Pope in assembling of a Coū∣cel, as it was said in the nexte question before, the assem∣bling of a Councel apperteineth vnto the Emperour, who after the Pope, and the Cardinalles, is the chiefe parte. Neither it ought to moue any man to thinke it inconuenient, that the Emperour, in that he is a laie man, should intermedle with maters belonging to clerkes. For he is not alwaies inhibited to iudge of Clerkes. But then he is forbidden, when there is no spe∣cial cause. For it is permitted for some special reason, as in consideration of fealtie. And in this cause there is a special, yea a most special reason, that the Catholique Faith come not to ruine, bicause it is in great danger by long suffering of pluralitie in the Popedome, that is to say, of moe Popes then one. In which the Emperour is the chiefe doer, and he hath the chief power. For to per∣mitte many Popes in the Popedome, is to offende that ar∣ticle of the Faith, I beleeue one holy Catholique, and Apo∣stolike Churche.

By this and the whole discourse, that Zabarella your authour maketh there, it appeareth M. Iewel, that the Emperour hath not the authoritie you pretende, but in that case of extreme necessitie. And by your aduocate in the Lawe, if he had not benne halfe in a phrenesie, you might haue learned, that, ex ijs quaeraro accid••nt, la∣ges non fiunt, of those thinges, that happen seldome, lawes are not made. And, Quae propter necessitatem rece∣pta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi, those thinges, that are receiued for necessitie, ought not to be drawen

to an argument, or president to be followed. Wherefore ••••ither vpon the doinges of the Emperours in that great and lamentable schisme of the Church, neither vpon Za∣barella you can builde, that Bishoppes may ordinarily be conuented before a ciuil Magistrate in ecclesiastical causes.

But sir, seing you thought it conuenient for your pur∣pose to vse the authoritie of Zabarella (although you haue fowly falsified, and misreported his wordes) tel vs by what reason, you maie refuse his authoritie, if we can allege it against you. He saith in the same treatie that you allege, Papa est vniuersalis Episcopus, Papa non habet superiorem. Papa habet iurisdictionem, & potestatem super omnes de iure. Sedes Apostolica errare non potest. The Pope is the vniuersal Bishop: The Pope hath no superiour: The Pope hath iurisdiction, and power ouer al by lawe. The Apostolique See can not erre. Why admitte you not this? Is it reason that you should admitte an authours saying, the whiche he spake, and allowed in a case of ne∣cessitie, for auoiding of a greater danger, and not admitte the same authours saying in the same treatie, whiche he speaketh according to receiued, and approued doctrine of the Catholique Church? Aske your aduocate, and he wil tel you, that reason, and lawe faith, That si quis vsus fuerit testibus, ijdem{que} testes producantur aduersus eum in alia lite, non licebit personas eorum excipere. If one vse witnesses (in a cause) and the same witnesses be brought against him in an other controuersie, it is not lawful for him to make exception against their personnes. And if either reason, or lawe could preuaile where heresie hath entred, you should not onely admitte this, but also

that, whiche he saith in an other place ••••••••stas〈…〉〈…〉 immediate pendat à Deo, per illa verba, Pasce〈…〉〈…〉 Papa habet potestatem supra omnes quic omnes sunt ••••••s. Papae vicem Dei gerit in terris, The power of the Pope dependeth immediatly of God, by those wordes; feede my sheepe. The Pope hath power ouer al, bicause al be sheepe. The Pope beareth the person of God in earth. For he spake this with as good aduise, as he spake the other. And this is generally allowed, and that but in a case. Wherefore if his authoritie be good in the one, ought it not to be good in the other?

Now therefore M. Iewel I reporte me to your in∣different iudgement, how true it is that you saie, that a Prince or a ciuil magistrate maie lawfully cal a Priest be∣fore him, to his owne seate of iudgement, and that a Bi∣shop maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as his lawful and superiour iudge in ecclesiastical causes. No one example, or sentence that ye haue yet alleged, doth proue that vaine assertion of yours: Neither could ye haue had any aduantage by them, if ye had truely repor∣ted their wordes, and declared the circumstances why, and wherefore they were spoken. But that liked you not. Wherefore referring your corruption, and false dealing in these matters of weight to the judgement of God, and examination of the indifferent and wise, I con∣clude against you, with S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and al other Catholique Fathers, that it is not conuenient, nor lawful for a king to cal priestes before him to his owne seat of Iudgement, as their su∣periour in ecclesiastical causes. As for the note glosed in the Decretalles, which ye bring to proue that priestes

are exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction by the Popes policie, and the princes consent, and not by the worde of God: we tel you, that suche glosed notes de∣clare you to be a very Gloser, and argue that your stoare is farre spent, when you rest vpon such marginal glosed notes. Were it graunted (which in no case we graunt) that Bisshoppes, and priestes were exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes, onely by the Popes policie, and consent of princes, for confirma∣tion whereof they haue made diuers lawes, and geuen out large priuileges: yet these lawes standing vnrea∣pealed, and priuileges vnauthorized, they can not be conuented lawfully before the ciuil magistrate. For it standeth not with the Maiestie of a prince to doo against his owne lawes, and breake the priuileges by him selfe graunted to others, before he hath with as mature aduise, and consideration re∣uoked them, as he did first graunte them.

Notes

• Confut. Fol. 299. ae.
• Confut. Fol. 302. ae
• Ambro∣sius. lib. 5. Epist. 32. Priestes only ought to be iudges ouer Priestes by Theo∣sius.
• An argu¦ment, pro¦uing that a Ciuile Magistrat maie not be iudge oner Priestes in causes ecclesia∣stical, and matters of Faith.
• ff. ad S. Trebel. L. ille. § Tē∣pestiuum.
• VVhat it is to be conuēted before a Magi∣strate. Spiegelius in verbo conuenire.
• Cod. de Episcopis et clericis. L. Nullus.
• Authent. 83. Coll. 6. vt Clerici apud pro∣prios Epis∣copos.
• The very point of this Que∣stion.
• Autent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici.
• Cod. de Episco. & clericis. L. Clericus.
• Anthent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici.
• Cod. de Episco. & Clericis. L. Statui∣mus.
• A Maxi∣ma amōg the lavv∣iers.
• L. Si qui ex consen∣su, de E∣pisco. Au∣dient. L. Cum Clericis, de Episco. & Cleri∣cis.
• M. Ievv. forgeth.
• Cran∣mare.
• De maior, & obedi∣ent. ca. 2. Innocent. 11. q. 1. Cle¦ric. nullus
• Extr. de offic. De∣leg. c. Sa∣nè.
• M. Ievvel begileth his Rea∣der vvith false alle∣gations.
• 2. q. 5. Mennam.
• VVhat vvas that Bruni∣childis had to do in the cause of Menna by cōmissiō of S. Gre∣gorie.
• Grego. lib. 11. epist. 8. 2. q. 4. Mennam.
• M. Iewels forgeries.
• M. Ievvel corrup∣teth his Glose by nipping avvay the ende of the sen∣tence al∣leged.
• It is. 2. q. 4.
• Socrates. lib. 1. c. 34
• Ruffin. in Histor. Ec∣cles. li. 10. cap. 17. Socrates. Li. 1. c. 29.
• Of this mater See the Re∣turne. Art. 4. Item the Countre∣blast. lib. 2 Cap. 2. &. 3
• Authenti∣ca constit. 123.
• Authenti∣ca constit. 123.
• Theodorit. li. 1. c. 19.
• August. cō∣tra epist. Parme. li. 1. cap. 7.
• M. Ievvels corruptiō
• Theodorit. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• Art. 4. fol. 104. 105, 106.
• Augusti∣nus epist. 162.
• Ibidem.
• Optatus li. 1. cōtra Parmen.
• 2. q. 7. Nos si. Gerson in Serm. Pa∣schali.
• Sozo. lib. 1 cap. 17.
• M. Ievvel failing of his pur∣pose, fal∣leth from the Popes purgatiō before Empe∣rours, to their ap∣pearance before Empe∣rours, vvhiche no man denied. Liberius appearing before Constan∣tius. T••••odorit. Eccles. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 16. Pope Si∣xtus after vvhat forte he made his purgatiō and for vvhat cause.
• 2. q. 4. Mādastis. Nostra authori∣tate.
• Leo 3. and Leo 4.
• 2. q. 4. Audite. 2. q. 7. Nossi.
• Dist. 63. In Synod. in Glos.
• Dist. 93. cap. vltim. in Glossa.
• Extr. de off. iudicis Deleg. c. Sanè.
• De sche∣mate, & Concilio. It is, de Schismate pontificū.
• M. Ievvel falsifieth his Do∣ctor by addition of his ovvne to helpe his mater.
• Zabarella made to saie, What pleaseth M. Ievvel
• In vvhat case of necessitie the Em∣perour may en∣termedle vvith matters of Faith and reli∣gion, af∣ter the minde of Zabarella
• Francis. Zabarel∣la de Schismate pontificū.
• L. Nā ad ad ea. ff. de legibus. ff. de regu lis iuris.
• Zabarella M. Ievvels ovvne do¦ctor alle∣ged agaīst M. Ievvel.
• L. Si quis. Cod. de te∣stibus.
• Ioan. 21.
• Zabarella in Clemēt. de Sentēt. & reiudi∣cata cap. pastoralis. Ibidem in Clement. de magi∣stris cap. Inter. de Sentent. excommu. cap. ex frequētib.
• Extr. de Maiorit. & obed. cap. 2. in marg.