A courteous CONFERENCE with the English Catholics Roman, about the six Articles ministered unto the Seminary priests, wherein it is apparently proved by their own divinity, and the principles of their own religion, that the Pope cannot depose her Majesty, or release her subjects of their allegiance unto her. And finally, that the Bull of Pius Quintus pronounced against her Majesty is of no force either in law or conscience, all Catholic scruples to the contrary being thoroughly and perfectly cleared and resolved, and many memorial matters exactly discussed, which have not been handled by any man heretofore. Written by john Bishop a recusant papist.   printer's device of Robert Dexter, featuring a hand pointing to a star (McKerrow 260) 
DEUS IMPERAT ASTRIS  
R D  
LONDON, Imprinted for Robert Dexter dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Brazen Serpent. 1598.   

The Six propositions handled in this Book.  

●at the Pope and all the Bishops and priests are subject by the we of God unto the temporal magistrate, in whose Realm and Dominions they do dwell.  
2 That they cannot deprive Christian princes of their principalities.  
● That the Pope cannot lose subjects of their natural faith and obedience unto their prince.  
4 That it is no determination of faith, that the Pope may depose princes.  
5 That the Canon made at the counsel of Lateran, touching the deposing of princes (the which hath bred the greatest scruple in the consciences of our Catholics Roman) neither is, nor ever was 〈◊〉 ●●●●e within this land.  
● That the sentence pronounced against her Majesty, was neither lawfully, nor orderly done, according unto the Lateran Canon.    

The Preface to the Reader.  
THIS Book (Christian Reader) was written by one john Bishop a recusant papist, what sufficient reason there is (notwithstanding) to commit it to the press, and from thence to the open view of all men, in the diligent perusing, & consideration thereof thou mayst plainly perceive and understand. It is a book which (in the judgement of many godly and learned men) is very necessary to come abroad, neither hath any objection been made against the publishing of the same, but only this, that it is to be feared, it will be a means to bring the papists into more favour, as discovering them to be nothing such dangerous enemies to the state, as of the greatest part they are reputed: but surely I see no cause to stand in fear of any such effect, but rather to rest fully resolved upon the contrary, that for as much as, howsoever some one of them being astonished with the light of God's truth, and looking back to the former times, showeth himself nothing so absurd as other, yet seeing the professed doctrine of their Church is otherwise, and the continual practice of the Pope, & all his adherentes is directly to the contrary, by murders, treasons, and rebellions, and by the invasions & open force of cruel enemies seeking the utter destruction of the Queen's most excellent Majesty (whom God many years yet preserve) and of all others that profess in truth the glorious Gospel of jesus Christ: accounting the Pope's Bulls a sufficient warrant for the overturning of God's ordinances, and his pardons, a strong bulwark against the wrath of God, against hell & condemnation. These things I say considered, I see no reason to fear any increase of their favour and credit by this means, but rather to hope (as there is just cause to desire) the increase of their discredit, and more straighter laws for the restraining of them. The magistrate hath had too much experience, that howsoever the judgements of some of the best learned among the papists may peradventure agree with the author of this book, yet the profession & practice of them all, both learned & unlearned is far otherwise, as by open and outrageous attempts there wants no good will in them to testify more plainly unto the whole world, if the day were once come they have so long looked for, & if they saw any likelihood of prevailing, but as the Lord for Zions sake hath hitherto defeyted their purposes, & returned their mischievous imaginations to their own cunfusion, so I nothing doubt, but he will continue for us a brazen wall of defence from time to time hereafter even until the second coming of his son in the clouds.  
Whether the author would himself have published this book, it is uncertain, that at the writing hereof he was so determined, it is very probable by that part of his preface which is come to our hands, where he beginneth thus. When I saw two or three years past many seminary priests: that which next ensued after these words was rend off and cannot be found, but on the other side of the paper it followeth thus. And whiles I, following Horace his counsel nonnunquam premitur in annum: did let this treatise lie by me in seasoning, that it might at length pass abroad perfect, fully refuting all objections of moment which old shops had shapened, or new forges had framed, etc. By this I say it appeareth that at the time of the writing thereof, he was fully determined to imprint this book, but afterwards it should see me his mind was altered, persuading himself that the publishing would greatly tend to the offence & disquieting of his Catholic brethren. For how is it possible, that they should take it patiently to see one of their own profession, so eagerly fight against them, & put them to the foil with their own weapons, & by the exprsse testimony also of the holy scriptures, & by so many approved authorities & examples, discovering to the world, the tyranny, the malicious, the proud & arrogant practices of their holy father. Surely so far would they have been from taking it in good part at his hand whiles he was alive, that I am fully persuaded, they neither can, nor will, with hold their tongues from exclaiming against him now he is dead, either accounting him to be an Apostata, or else making themselves believe that this work is falsey fathered upon him. But to put them out of doubt both of the one, & the other. That he was no backslider from their religion but unto his dying day continued a recusant papist, it is so well known at Battle in Sussex, where he was borne & often conversant, & at London where he spent a great part of his time, as also in all the country near unto Battle, as that there needeth not any further testimony. And that he was in very truth the author of this book, & of every part thereof, is manifestly, to be proved by his own hand writing, so well known at Battle & in the country thereabouts & also of many in London, as that there is no need to fear the clearing also of this scruple. Let any man that knoweth his hand, & is desirous to be resolved of the truth, repair to Northhiham in Sussex, & at the house of George Bishop brother to the deceased author, he shall at his pleasure have a sight of the same. To conclude, this also wisely & diligently is the reader to understand, that although he writ very directly against the Pope & popery, yet in many respects doth he show himself a papist, as in following of corrupt translations, in the places of scripture which he allegeth, & in misapplying many of them, contrary to the true sense & meaning of the holy Ghost, wherein although some warning is given by a few marginal notes added of purpose and signed wit● this letter, yet cannot the godly reader for all that be too weary and circumspect in the particular consideration of the same.   

Faults escaped.  
Pag. 2. for every, read (every). Pag. 3. for in?, read ni? Pa. 4. for junius, read. Fumus Pag 7. for 〈…〉   

A courteous conference with the English Catholics Roman about the six Articles ministered unto the Seminary priests, wherein it is apparently proved by their own divinity and the principles of their own religion that the Pope cannot depos● her Majesty or relea●e her subjects of their Allegiance unto her.  
NOw then to prove my first proposition that the Pope and all the Bishops and Priests are subject by the law of God unto the temporal magistrate, 
All persons subject to the temporal magistrate.  in whose realm and dominions they do dwell, thus I prove, Solomon. Prou. 24. saith my son fear the Lord and King, and intermeddle not or be not among detractors, for their destruction will arise suddenly and who knoweth the ruin of them both. Likewise Saint Paul the Apostle in his writing to the Romans' thus exhorteth or rather commandeth them Chap. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher power for there is no power but from God: but those which are, were ordained by God etc. So then he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God but they which do resist do get themselves damnation: for princes be no fear of good work but of ill, but wilt thou not fear the power? do well and then shalt thou have praise thereby, for he is the minister of God unto thee to good; but if thou have done ill, then fear for he beareth not the sword without cause; he is the minister of God, a revenger in wrath to him that doth ill. And therefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience, for therefore do yea also pay tribute, for they are the ministers of God serving for this very purpose. Also in his epistle to Titus Cap. 3. he writes: warn them to be subject to principalities & powers, to obey their commandments. Moreover S. Pet●r from whom the Pope claimeth his mo●arc●● thus writeth in his first universal epistle Cap. 2. Be ye ●ub ect to every human creature for the Lord, whether it be 〈…〉 most excellent or unto the precedents, as sent 〈◊〉 him, to the revenge of evil deeds, but to the praise of 〈◊〉 good because so is the will of God, that ye doing well, ●ay make more the ignorance of the unskilful as free men, 〈…〉 as men that have liberty for a cloak of naughtiness, but a● the bondmen of God, and anon after, fear God and honour the King. Ye do see how the old and new law do agree in the supreme authority of princes, over all persons borne or abiding within their dominions. Paul using this universal every, excepting none, and Solomon and Peter an indefinite, in this place equal unto an universal. And Peter and Paul do in express words give unto him the supreme Emp●re of administering justice in punishing the wicked & rewarding the good; and that he is so the Apostle doth prove by that ●ll men pay him tribute, the which also he commandeth to be paid, and also chargeth all men to be obedient unto him▪ and not for fear only, lest otherwise the prince would make them smart, but also for conscience sake, because the● are in duty bound so to do, for that God had ordained them to be his lieutenants in government. And therefore if they were not obedient unto them, they must needs be accounted & reputed for rebels unto God, that would not accept him for their sovereign whom God had set over them. And Peter to suppress the carnal cogitation of the jews unto whom he wrote that thought that the messias had enfranchised them, by his redemption from all subjection to man & also to prevent the proud opinion of the clergy that should come after, who would claim exemption from earthly subjection, because they were appointed & ordained dispensers of the mysteries of the Messiah: he flatly affirmeth the claming of such liberty to be nothing else put a plain pretence & cloak for their naughtiness: For he would they should remember that although they were delivered by Christ from the bondage & tyranny of sin, death & the Devil, yet they remained still his & his father's bondmen, & therefore ought dutifully to obey still the civil magistrates, whom God hath placed in his own throne, his king & his lieutenant over them. And therefore Solomon in the place afore alleged, 
An appellation in secular causes cannot be made to the Pope.  joineth them together saying: fear God and the King. God principally (saith Lyra writing on that place) and secondarily the King who is his Vicar in temporal things. This being so, I cannot choose but much marvel at that saying in Cap. Licet de sor. comp. that an appellation may be made from all princes temporal. Yea & such as do acknowledge no superior in temporalities, when none other can be had, and the matter is of some weight. For if as Tertullian saith in his Apology that there is no man above the Emperor, et quem soli Deo subiicio and whom I make under none but God, & in another place of the same Apology he saith of the Emperors of Rome, in Dei solius potestate sunt, a quo sunt secundi, post quem primi ante omnes, et super omnes deos, quid in? cum super omnes homines, they are under God only, unto whom they are second after whom they are first, before all men, and above all gods, and why not? seeing they are above all men. And again if it be true that the grave and learned light of our lawyers Bracton, that lived almost four hundredth years ago, in the reign of Henry the third, doth affirm in the beginning of his book, that a King cannot be a King, if he have any superior in those things that do appertain unto his crown and kingdom, and may not have in his kingdom any equal much less any superior especially in administration of justice, that it may be said of him: Great is our Lord & great is his power etc. And that he doth aff●irme him to be the vicar of God on earth; 
This place Psal. 14●. 5 〈…〉 o●●od.  I can not see by what right or reason, an appellation in a secular cause can be made from an Emperor, King or any supreme temporal magistrate unto the Pope seeing he is not their superior in temporalities. For all the world knoweth that an appellation can not be made but from an inferior judge, unto an higher, and also his superior in that kind of jurisdiction. But much more am I amazed at that impudent assertion Cap. tibi domino. 63. D. and inserted by junius into his armilla aurea in the title of Papa, Omnis potestas jurat fidelitatem Papae, et obedientiam, recognoscens ab eo omne quod habit. 
Not yet n spiritual matters.  Et si aliquando aliquis imperator donabit Ecclesiae ut de Constantine dicitur, non fuit donatio sed restitutio. Every power doth sweat feaulty and obedience unto the Pope acknowledging from him all that he hath. And if at any time some Emperor gave unto the Church as is reported of Constantine it was no giving but a restoring: For this is so repugnant unto the holy scriptures and the common opinion of all divines both ancient and modern that most of our Catholics Romans I think will be so far from defending it, that they namely, the unlearned sort will as soon as ever they read it cry out at me, as a most shameless liar for alleging of so shameful a sentence. But although as I said our Catholic Roman will not perhaps affirm that, Papae est terra & plenitudo eius, orbis terrarum●● universi qui habitant in ea, the earth is the Popes and the fullness thereof, the orb of the earths and all that dwell therein.  
Yet ● do nothing doubt but divers of them do hold being taught by their schoolmaster Pighius and other that albeit Peter and the Apostles were subject unto the Emperors and under other heathen states under whom they were borne and abode, yet alter that the Emperors and Kings of the earth became Christians and did voluntarily put their necks under the yoke of Christ, 
The pops nor bishops have any secular kingdom.  they straightway became ipso facto subject unto the Pope Christ his Lieutenant general in earth: according to the prophesy of Esay. Cap. 60. the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee jerusalem shall perish: but how truly let us consider. For first that the sense of this saying of the prophet is not such as Pighius supposeth but rather this, 
A place of Esay answered.  that every nation that will not acknowledge Christ for their God, Lord and Saviour, and be obedient unto his precepts and ordinances shall perish, I do think is so apparent that it needeth no proof and spoken only of his spiritual kingdom on the earth which his father gave unto him as Messiah as it is written in the second Psalm. Thou art my son this day did I beget thee, ask of me and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the bounds of the earth for thy possession: and then as also in this place of Esay he commandeth the kings to serve him in fear, and to accept him for their prince, and embrace his discipline and doctrine or else they should perish. Now seeing this was a new kingdom, and inheritance given him by his father lately, it cannot be understood of the bodily and earthly kingdom, for he as God was possessed of that before, and from the beginning; according to that saying of David. The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof, the orb of the earth and all that dwell therein. But of his new and newly restored kingdom consisting of believing souls, and called the kingdom of heaven, whereof he thus speaketh, unto his Apostles and messengers after his resurrection: all power is given me in heaven and in earth, wherefore go ye and proclaim, publish and make known unto nations, how my father hath given me the Empire of the whole earth, and that those which shall refuse to wear my badge of baptism, and to observe and keep my laws & ordinances while they live on earth, shall after death be shut out of heaven & blissful paradise. And so have all both old and late writers that ever I saw interpreted this place, and not of any earthly and servile subjection, as Hierome, the nations and kings that will not serve the Church in a good and profitable bondage or service that they may be transferred into the Apostolical dignity: as Haimo shall serve thee by faith and good works: As Leo de Castro, who interpreteth that by this place of the Gospel: He that will believe and be baptized shallbe saved; but he that will not believe shall be condemned. And as Frererius an other learned Spanish Friar, that those which will not come into and continue in the true Church of Christ shall perich: And this to be the true meaning of the Prophet doth the next sentence before plainly convince. Thy gates shall stand open continually, day and night shall they not be shut, that the strength of the nations or gentiles may be brought unto thee, and the kings of them led unto thee for the nation, etc. Neither is Pighius his cause any thing better advanced by an authority of Nazianzene borrowed out of Gratian, 
A place of Nazianzene answered.  but afterward alleged by Saunders and Allen more according to the truth of the text which they do set down in these words. What will you not be content that I do speak my mind freely: for the law of Christ doth subject you to my power, and unto my bar: for we also have an empire, yea & I do say more a more excellent and perfect than yours: unless it be meet that the spirit do submit itself to the flesh, and that heavenly things give place to earthly. For who is so blind that cannot see that Nazianzene doth in this speech challenge none other than a spiritual government, such as our Bishops have here over their dioceses, and priests over their parishes a charge of souls, and therefore because it hath the care and ordering of spiritual and heavenly things, he doth affirm it to be more excellent & perfect then the Empire of kings who do rule over the bodies and goods of men: So that no words can more manifestly deprive the Pope and priests of all earthly empire and command in temporal things than these do which do affirm them to belong to the civil magistrate, their office being only occupied in saving of souls, by spiritual means, and only in matters spiritual & heavenly, as preaching, praying, administration of the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline, and such like appropriated to priesthood; and that this was his meaning & mind it is apparent by the words which he useth before to the Citizens of Nazanse in the which he doth acknowledge himself, and all the clergy subject unto the secular sovereign saying thus. But among other laws of our doctrine, we have also this most laudable law enacted, by the which as bondmen are commanded to obey & to be obedient unto their masters, & wives unto their husbands, and the Church unto Christ & disciples and scholars to their schoolmasters and pastors; so are we also prescribed to obey the superexcellent powers, not only for wrath but also for conscience, as we that are bound to payment of tribute. Neither let us so behave ourselves, that we for our wickedness and lewd facts, do deadly hate the law and look for the revenging sword, but rather so lead our lives that we may get praise of the power and magistrate: And then after he hath very eloquently showed by many similitudes that they ought not to blame the harmless of the sword, but to impute the smart thereof unto their own faultiness; he leaveth as he saith the subjects and turneth his speech unto the Emperor and the governors, for ye must understand that this oration was pronounced in the presence of the people of Nazanse, trembling for fear of the emperors great displeasure and also of the angry Emperor and his officers, lest he should be thought (these are his words) to deal altogether partially either not seeming to have the like care over them to whom he ought more hoofully to look unto, as they that could do most either harm or good, as he had of the other inferior sort: or else to have lost through fear or shame the freedom that he had from Christ not daring to admonish them of their duty, because of their great dignity and power. And then he useth the words alleged by our adversaries; what will ye not be content etc. But I do not doubt but your majesty will take this my free speaking in good part, as a holy sheep of my holy flock, and a weaneling of the great shepherd. And then he useth very effectual reasons to move him to mercy, and finally falleth to pitiful obtestations, by his own hoary head, his immaculate priesthood which the Angels etc. by Christ his bitter passion, etc. in most suppliant sort, without any one word that any whit savoureth or soundeth of authority, power or command, wisely and godly teaching the subjects dutiful obedience, and the Emperor and his officers mercy and moderation in government. Furthermore the better to boult out the truth, in the controversy I think it will not be amiss to search out, whether in the old law the high priest who was a type and figure of Christ, and head of all the priests, and had the supreme ministration of the mysteries of God, 
The high priest subject to the temporal magistrate.  and in whose name of Pontifex, the Bishop of Rome hath succeeded, was subject unto the civil magistrate or Noah. And that he was is plainly proved in the 2. Cap. of 3. King's where Solomon deposeth Abiathar the high priest, of his office, and confirmeth him into Anathotb because he had gone about to make Adoniah King, and also told him that he had deserved to die; but he would not put him to death, because he had borne the Ark of the Lord God, before his father David, and had been a continual partaker of all his father's troubles. Then if Solomon might lawfully execute the high priest for treason there is no doubt but that the high priests were subject unto the kings, as unto their sovereigns.  
But although I will pass over in silence, the putting to death of the high priest Achimelech and Azarias by Saul and joas because they will cavil they were tyrannical, yet I will stay a little upon the suppliant speech of Achimelech because it argueth subjection in the speaker. Saul upon the occasion of Doeg sent for Achimelech the son of Achitob, 
1. Reg. 22. 19 Cap.  & all the hole house of his father being priests which were in Nob, who came every man unto the king, and Saul said: Listen thou son of Achitob: who answered I am here my Lord. And Saul said why hast thou and the son of Ishai conspired against me: and hast given him being a traitor (and so continuing to this day) bread and a sword, and hast asked counsel of God for him, that he might rise up against me? And Achimelech answering the king thus spoke? Let this crime be far from me, neither let the king suspect any such thing against his bondman, nor of any man of the whole house of my father: For thy bondman knew neither less nor much of this matter, etc. Doth there not appear in these words almost a servile subjection of the high priests unto the king? for by what base term can he call himself then his bondman? or by what higher and more sovereign name could he speak unto the king then calling him his Lord? a word that doth signify the prince to have his subjects in such servility: that Octavian the Emperor that did accept the names of Augustus or divine, of father of his country &c. to have his name sworn by and his images sacrificed unto as a God: 
19 Cap. 2. Crome.  Yet would never admit as Suetonius and Dion do affirm the title of Lord but abhorred it as reproachful, although now time and custom have mollified the word. But that the high priest had nothing to din matters of state, we have it set down in flat words in the 19 of the second Paralip, or the Chronicles where this we do read. But Amarias the priest and your high priest shall be precedent or chief in those things which do appertain to God, but Zebadias the son of Ishmaell who is captain of the house of juda, shall be over those works which do belong unto the king. But now that we have sufficiently proved the subjection of the high priest of the jews, let us come to Christ himself by pretence of being whose vicar and deputy in earth the Pope claimeth this proud prerogative of perching over princes, 
Christ no earthly king.  and discuss whether that he, as Christ and Messiah, (for I think the Pope doth not challenge to be Gods but Christ's vicar,) was an earthly Monarch or no; that he was none, it is apparently proved, by his refusing to give judgement on a woman accused of adultery, 
john. 8.  and also by denying himself to be a competent judge between two brothers, that contended about an inheritance. And finally in that he confessed unto Pilate in express words that his kingdom was not of this world. 
john. 18.  As for the paying of four drachmas for himself & Peter at Capernaum, I think with Theophylactus and some other that it was for the half sicle (which is two drachmas) due unto the Lord for every man that was twenty years of age, as we read in Exodus rather then for tribute due to the Emperor, because me thinketh it doth better agree with Christ's interrogation to Peter, what thinkest thou Peter, of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute, of their own children or of strangers, and he said of strangers: jesus said unto him then are the children free. As though he should have said. 
This exposition is utterly repugnant to the meaning and purpose of Christ, as the godly reader, doth well understand  If kings children do not pay tribute to their fathers, neither ought I to pay unto God any, because I am his son: But if any man will contend that he affirmed that he ought to pay no tribute to the Emperor, because he was the son of the supreme Emperor God Almighty, I will not greatly strive with him, but I will in no wise grant Felicius that he claims to be discharged, by right of any earthly Empire that he possessed as Christ; for that by no means can be gathered out of the text, yea what say you that that famous friar Dominicus Soto doth hold in learned work de justit. & jure, that the kingdom of Christ was mere spiritual, and writeth that he had proved it at large in his commentaries upon Matthew. Moreover the matter is so manifest that Pighius himself is forced to confess that Christ his kingdom was only spiritual, and yet he giveth to him whom he would have to be his deputy, temporal superiority over all Christian princes in that he is Christ his Lieutenant, with as great absurdidie as if a man should deny that the Archbishop of Canterbury can hear and determine of felonies, and yet hold that his official may, or deprive the Constable of authority to enter forcibly into any man's house, otherwise then in cases of treason and felony, and yet grant it to the Constable's deputy, or to say that her Majesty can not put in or out at her pleasure, any soldiers into her town of Berwick, and yet maintain that her lieutenant of the Town may do it. And see I pray you how he answereth this objection out of the Gospel, as my father sent me so I send you. Whereas they say that Christ came not to exercise authority and empire over monarchs, Kings and princes, but as he was sent by the father, 
Christ gave no temporal power to Bishops nor Pope  so he doth witness that the Apostles were sent by him, neither therefore had they authority over kings and princes they gather not aright, for that word (as) doth not import a likeness in all points between them which were sent, Chest and his Apostles: but doth show the senders or the authority of the senders: As if he had said, my father sent me but I send you, otherwise Christ was sent by his father to redeem mankind by his death, but not so neither to that end were the Apostles sent by Christ, but for this purpose, that they should out of all nations gather together his kingdom in the which all men should be made partakers of his benefits: unto the which kingdom yet he himself had prescribed laws, and had ordained Peter to be governor thereof. 
Yet had Peter no more authority than the rest of the Apostles.  I deny not but that the sending of Christ did in some points surmount the sending of the Apostles, but that Christ sent forth his Apostles with a larger commission and power, than his father had given him, that no man I think will lightly grant Pighius, that knoweth that rule of the Canon Law, yea and I do think of all laws: Nemo potest pius juris conferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur. (No man can give more right unto another, then may be known is in himself, & the saying of Christ, that the scholar is not above his schoolmaster, nor the bondman above his Lord; but it is enough for the scholar to be as his master is, and the bondman as his Lord. And john. 13. Verily verily I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his master, neither the Apostle nor legate or messenger greater than him that sent him. And with what authority he sent them, it appeareth by the words that immediately follow: when he had said these words, he blew upon them and said unto them, receive the holy ghost: whose sins ye shall remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained: and can any man call this power an earthly empire? And because Pighius saith that Christ had ordained Peter governor of his kingdom, I pray let us consider what power he gave unto him at the time of his institution or inauguration, his words be these, 
Mat. 16.  I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the earth shall also be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose upon the earth shall be also loosed in heaven, ye apparently see that Christ gave unto Peter not the keys of the earthly kingdom or Empire to advance and depose Princes, but of the Kingdom of heaven to let in or shut out from heaven, neither had he a sword or Sceptre given him as ensign of a King, but a key a token of a porter. So that except the Pope can show another Chapter then that which was given to Peter he will want words to carry away a terrene monarch. But although Pighius do grant Christ his kingdom to be spirival, yet Felisius in his book upon the ten commandments, 
Felisius' objections of Christ's kingdom answered.  on the Commandment honour thy father and thy mother, will not yield thereunto; but endeavoureth to prove his secular power and monarchy by his practice, in deciding all kind of causes as of life and death when he bad Peter put up his sword▪ of criminal when he willed the woman taken in adultery to be gone: and of civil when he determined the controversi between the pharisees & the Herodians, whether the jews ought to pay tribute unto the Emperors of Rome or no. Doubtless if Felisius were not accounted for a great learned man among the Catholics Roman I would not vouchsafe to shape these objections an answer, they are so frivolous. For who seethe not that Christ his commanding of Peter to put up his sword doth no more prove that Christ had authority of public justice, than the bidding of any simple gentleman in the City of London that his man put up his sword which he had drawn in a fray against his enemy, will convince him to be a justice of the peace of the same City, But that Christ said unto the woman taken in adultery that she might begun her way, for seeing no man had condemned her neither would he: He doth plainly declare that he had no authority to condemn or detain her, but that she might be gone for any thing he had to say or deal with her. Now for the matter of paying tribute it was not brought before him as a competent judge by parties sueing and sued by process awarded, or upon distress taken, but only moved unto him as a skilful Doctor and learned divine to be determined, as a doubt between the two sects of the pharisees and the Herodians; As if a Protestant and Catholic should privately come to Doctor Felisius to know his opinion whether the Pope may depose Christian Princes or Noah, but in very deed they came not to Christ to be resolved of the doubt but only to entrap him and to see if happily they could bring him within the compass of treason; by denying the payment of tribute unto the Emperor, and so procure his death by the Roman precedent, as seditious; And therefore he asked them why they tempted him, and willed them to show him a penny, and then he demanded of them whose image was stamped on the piece, and they answered the Emperors; then said he, give the Emperor that which is his, and so likewise into god that which is gods: a very obscure sentence given by a judge in a suit: but a wise and witty answer for such false traitorous Interrogants. And with the like trifles doth the same Felisius also trouble us, when he goeth about to prove the exemption of the clergy from free subjection of secular princes because Melchisdech was both a king and a priest, & so likewise Moses a priest & supreme governor of the Iseralites: And finally Hely was both high priest, and also secular Prince or judge of the jews: For if Melchisedech were both a King and a Priest what is that to the controversy that we have now in hand, whether that Priests be subject unto the temporal Prince: (but perhaps it touched the matter if we had disputed whether that a Bishop may be also a temporal Prince, 
See Fenestella.  As for a King to be a Priest was an usual thing in many countries among the heathen: Yea all the Roman Kings had the chief charge of the sacrifices, temples and worship of the gods, and therefore when the Kings were expelled they ordained a priest whom they called the sacrificing King, who should execute those public sacrifices which did of right belong unto the King's function, but for hatred of their kings made him subject unto the chief Priest or Pontifiex Maximus: the which office of Pontifiex Maximus all the heathen Roman Emperors continually had. 
See Dion. etc.  But that Moses was both the civil magistrate and also a priest it maketh very much against himself, for although we do grant that Moses was a Priest, yet it is most manifest that he was not high Priest, but his brother Aaron whom yet to be subject unto Moses all men seen in the sacred scriptures do know, so that nothing can make more for the superiority of the civil magistrate than this example that Aaron being high Priest and head and chief of all Priests, was yet subject to Moses an ordinary Priest, 
Moses was a prophet and not a priest.  because he had the sovereignty temporal. Likewise what is it to the purpose if that Hely the high Priest was also created secular magistrate, for so were all the high Priests after the return of the people from Babylon, until they were conquered by the Romans' and the kingdom was given by them unto Herodes a stranger and Idumean.  
Now seeing we have abundantly proved in general, the superiority of the civil magistrate over all men living within their dominions, both by express places of scripture, and authorities of ancient fathers, and also convinced the subjection of the high Priest in the old law unto the civil Prince, and clearly showed Christ's kingdom to be spiritual and that he gave none other to Peter and the rest of the Apostles and their successors, and have fully answered all objections of the adversaries, I will descend unto practice and prove the superiority of Emperors and Italian Kings over the Popes and Bishops of Rome by the prescripsion of seven hundredth years after Christ 〈◊〉 kind of proof which we Catholics Roman exact of the Protestants crying unto them to show their successiion. But because Pighius the Popes proctor in the secular primacy doth subject his client unto the heathen Emperors, 
The Pops subject to the Emperors and Italian kings.  I need fetch my limmitation no higher than Constantine the great the first Christian Emperor. Now to show how he banished Bishops perhaps will be thought to small purpose, because they do give this earthly Empire not unto the Clergy but only unto the Bishop of Rome as Christ's lieutenant general in all causes as well spiritual as temporal. 
See for, these histories Paul: Dia● Platina and Sabellicus.  But I do find that his son and successor Constantius did banish Liberius the Bishop of Rome because he would not subscribe to the deposition of Athanasius and caused another to be c●osen in his place. Moreover when the City of Rome and the Country of Italy came by conquest into the possession of the Ostrogothes in Anno Domin. 483. 
Liberius.  Theodoricus the King of the Ostrogothes or of Italy commanded to come before him to Ravenna whether he had transferred the seat of the Empire of Italy, leaving the city of Rome in the government of the Senate, 
Symmachus.  And lest some man unskilful of antiquities should dream, that it was then the Popes by the donation of Constantine, Theodoricus I say summoned before him at Ravenna Symmachus and Laurentius who contended for the Bishopperickes of Rome to the division of the whole City, 
I●hn.  that he as soveraing might determine the controversy upon hearing of the matter. And afterward when justinus Emperor of Constantinople had banished the Arrians out of all his dominions, Theodoricus sent john the bishop of Rome and their Senators Ambassadors unto justinus willing them in threatening sort to tell the Emperor from him that unless he did speedily restore to the Arrians their Churches, and suffer them to live in peace, that he would extinguish 〈…〉 Italy. They coming to 〈…〉 honourably received by him, did with 〈…〉 being very hoofull for the safety of themselves and 〈◊〉 countrymen, entreat the Emperor graciously to grant the ●●nor of their Embassage, although it were unjust, and to have regard and compassion of Italy which otherwise would utterly perish, with whose tears the Emperor being moved granted them their request. But when the Bishop with his associates were returned to Ravenna to make relation unto the King of the emperors answer▪ Theodoricus moved with malice because 〈◊〉 a defender of the Catholic piety had received him so honourably▪ killed him and his fellows with painful imprisonment. Then Theodotus, another king of the Ostrogothes sent Agapetus 
Agapetus  the Bishop of Rome Ambassador as his subject unto justinian the Emperor, which justinian not long after having recovered Rome from the Ostrogothes, did not by his Lieutenant, but by his Lieutenant Belsarius his wife spoil Silverius 
Silberius:  the Bishop of Rome of his Bishopprick●, & bishops robes: and putting him in monastical needs confined him into an out Island Charging him that he would have betrayed the gate Asmaria that adjoined unto his house unto the Ostrogothes, but in deed perhaps there was some other privy grudge hidden in the Empress her heart. But the manner of the doing doth manifestly declare for how small Prince's Popes were reputed in those days, for Belsarius sending an officer for him the Bishop was brought into his bed Chamber, because Belsarius sat by his wife who being that day come from Naples wary was laid down on her bed. But the proud Dame had no sooner seen the Bishop, but she began to 〈◊〉 and said, oh sirrah wherein have I or my Belisarius so so●e offended your mastership, that you should betray us unto the Goths and immediately b●d away with him, not suffering him to speak one word, And in his room was one Vigilius 
Vigilius.  placed, who not long after refusing to restore unto his seat Anthenius who had been deprived of the Bishopbricke of Constantinople for the heresy of Eutiches; Th●odora the Empress who favoured Anthenius commanded to be arrested at Rome and sent prisoner to Constantinople, where when being urged with this unjust request he had broken out into this impatient speech that he had thought he had come to justinian, but that now he well perceived it was to Dioclesian. He was so well whipped for forgetting his lesson in the two and twentieth of Exodus Non maledices principi populi tui thou shalt not speak ill to the prince of thy people; that he was almost slain (I do think no Christian or civil Emperor much less justinian would so servilely have used him whom he reputed the monarch of the world) and anon after was ignominiously drawn along the city in a halter and then put in prison where he continued many years with only bread and water Anno Domini. 591. Pelagius 
Pelagius  the bishop of Rome sent Gregory who succeeded him in the see unto Mauritius the Emperor of the east, to desire him not to be offended for that he had suffered himself to be denounced bishop before he had obtained his consent and confirmation; for he could not send before that time to Constantinople, because the city of Rome had been straightly besieged by the Lombard's: Now in those days saith Platina and all other Historians, writing of those times and affairs the election of the bishop of Rome was void without the emperors assent and conformation. And now we are come to Gregory himself surnamed the great a man in such credit with the Popes of latter times and the Catholics Roman, 
Greg●●y the great.  that they and we do more follow him in the divine service and ceremonies, than all the rest that ever sat in that see before him, and therefore I do hope that you will the more willingly allow and embrace his opinion and judgement of the secular sovereignty. As I do not doubt but ye will cavil at many of my former examples as unjust and tyrannical, the which I will, not greatly stick to grant you, and yet they do strongly prove the superiority of those princes, and that they were there lawful, although lawless sovereigns, for as substantially do the banishmentes of the Catholic bishops by the heretical Emperors convince the sovereignty of the Emperors over the bishops: as the confining of the heretical bishops by the Catholic Emperors, Neither am I less assured of the subjection of the bishops of Asia unto the Emperor of Constantinople for that I read that Valens banished the Catholic bishops thereof, than I am when I find that Theodosius banished the Arrian bishops of Asia. For never shall we find that when the Empire was divided that ever the Emperors of the East of what Religion soever they were did banish the bishops of the West nor contrary wise; but either dealt only with them that were under their own Empire, and who would have a better proof that this Island was subject unto the Roman Empire then the havoc that Dioclesian made here of the Christians, and there Church and doth not he as sufficiently show himself to be a lawful judge that hangeth up twenty true men, a● he that executeth as many thieves: Neither do we read that these Emperors and Kings were reproved for injuriously punishing them, over whom they had no authority by right: but because they punished them against law and right: for matters that deserved no punishment. But leaving this let us go to Gregory, who had not learned to date his let●ers as the Popes do now with Anno Pontificatus nostri in the year of our Popedom but regnant domino nostro Mauritio Tiberio piissimo Anno decimo quarto, post Consulatum eiusdem domini nostri decimo tertio, in the year of the reign of our Lord Mauretius Tiberius the most godly Emperor the fourteenth, and after the consulship of the same Lord of ours the thirteenth, as his four letters in the ecclesiastical history of Beda are dated: wherein I do note three things: first that he doth not write the date of his own creation or inauguration as sovereigns do; and secondly as subjects do that he writeth the date of the reign of their Prince: and thirdly that he called him Lord: a word so haughty and high, that Augustus made an edict that no man should call him so, Noah nor would not suffer his Children nor children's Children to call him so, 
Suetonius  neither in earnest nor in sport. Moreover with what dutiful humility are all his letters fraught that he directeth unto the Emperor calling him in the plural number after an unwonted manner, to declare his unwonted lowliness and wont subjection. Domini my Lords, and yet because no man should think he called him so rather of humility then of duty, it is apparent he useth not that term to any other: But writing unto Ethelbert the King of Kent he calleth him in Beda, son, a name of obedience and dutifulness, but yet also of love as he also calleth Ch●lderbert the King of France. 
●plaplib. 4. Indicto 12. eplam 96. et 97.  But omitting many of his letters I will only rehearse somewhat out of his threescore and one of the second book, wherein he finding great fault with the Emperor for making an unjust Law as he saith: that no Soldier should enter into Religion, the which would have made him to have forgotten all humility, if he had been as proudly spirited as some of his successors have been, he thus beginneth his letters. Omnipotenti Deo reus est qui serenissimis Dominis in omni quod agit & loquitur purus non est. Ego autem indignus pietatis vestrae famulus. etc. He is guilty unto God that is not pure unto my renowned Lords in all things that he doth and speaketh, but I an unworthy servant of your godliness, etc. And anon after, Fatemur Dominis meis, and Dominorum pietas sanxit, I do confess unto my Lords, and the godliness of my Lords hath decreed. And again, Ego vero Dominis meis loquens quid sum nisi pulvis & verniis: sed tamen quia contra authorem omnium Deum hanc intendere constitutionem sentio Dominis tacere non possum. But I speaking unto my Lords what am I but dust and a worm; but because I do perceive that this constitution doth tend against God the creator of all, I cannot hold my peace unto my Lords: Is this the speech of a sovereign or a subject. And a little after. Ad hac per me se●uum ultimum suum & vestrum respondebit Christus dicens, ego te & sacerdotes meos manus tua commisi, tu a meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis. And ego indignus famulus vester sci● &c. unto this will Christ himself answer by me his vilest bondman and yours, saying, I have advanced thee from, etc. unto the empire, etc. I have committed my priests into thy hands, and thou dost withdraw thy soldiers from my service. And I your unworthy servant do know. And at the foot of the letter he writeth that which striketh this present controversy stone dead: Ego quidem Ius●ioni subiectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minimè concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis dominis meis nunciavi, utribique ergo quae debui exolui, qui & imperatori obedientiam pribus, & pro Deo quae sensui minimè tacui: I being subject to commandment have caused the same law to be sent through divers parts of the world, and because the same law doth nothing agree with God, behold I have signified it unto my renowned Lord by the letter of my suggestion, wherefore I have in both things discharged that which I ought, who have showed obedience unto the Emperor, and yet have never a whit left unspoken that which I thought in God's behalf: In this authority I note first, that the Pope doth acknowledge himself subject and servant unto the Emperor being a Christian and doth call him his liege Lord. secondly he doth affirm that God had subjecteth the priests and clergy unto the Christian princes for to serve them: for otherwise it can not answer the other member: and thou dost withdraw thy soldiers from my service: And thirdly that Gregory a Pope doth acknowledge and affirm himself to be subject unto the emperors commandment, yea and thought himself so bound to obey him, that he might not with a safe conscience refuse to publish such decrees of his as he thought in his conscience ungodly, 
M●lanus divini ie, that Gregory offended not in obeying a wicked & an ●ngodly commandment.  the which thing if any cunning Catholic think that Gregory might not lawfully do, let him read Molanus a learned Catholic of Lovayne his book de fide hereticis & rebellibus servanda, of keeping promise with heretics and rebels, and there he shall find his fact defended, moreover the like subjection of himself and the clergy unto the Emperiour doth he acknowledge writing of this very same matter and Law unto Theodorus the emperors physician in these words words, Valde autem mihi durum videtur ut ab eius seruitio milites suos prohibeat, qui ei & omnia tribuit, & dominarie● non solùm militibus, 
Eplapelib. 2. Ind●●. in eplape●●lt.  sed etiam sacerdotibus concesset. In english this, But it seemeth to me to be hard that he should forbid his soldiers his service, who hath both given him all that he hath, and also granted him to be Lord over not only the soldiers but also the priests. In the same letter also he doth call the king my Lord; and our Lord. But although I hope that this assertion and judgement of Grego●●e surnamed the great, a Pope, a canonised saint, and one of the four approved Doctors of the latin Church, will satisfy all reasonable Catholics Roman. Yet I will proceed further with the ecclesiastical practice. Anon after Gregory and about the year of our Lord. 608. Bonifacius the third was a very earnest suitor unto Phocas the Emperor, 

Bonifacius.  
Paulus diaconus.   to decree that the sea of Rome should be the head Church of Christendom, the which at length he obtained with much a do: but in good faith he might have saved much labour, if he had been Monarch of the world, for than he could have done it of himself without once God have mercy to the Emperor. 
Paulus diaconus.  And his successor Bonifacius the fourth put up a supplication to the same Phocas that he would vouchsafe to command that the Temple of Pantheon at Rome, which had been dedicated to all the Pagan Gods, should be converted to the Church of the virgin Mary, and of all the holy Martyrs. 
Severinus  I trow this example is of some moment, Anno. 636. Severinus was chosen Bishop of Rome, to ratify the which election saith Sabellicus, there must be had the assent of the emperors Lieutenant in Italy, called the Eparch. Isaac that then had that charge came therefore to Rome as he said, but because he would be paid for his pains, he took out all the treasure out of the vestry of the Lateran Church, dividing part of it among his soldiers, and sending part unto the Emperor, and lest he should be called an ill cook, he also licked his own fingers; and yet the Pope stirred not one whit, such powerless princes were Popes in those days, 
Sabell.  and such servile subjects unto Emperors: Again about Anno Domini. 650. Constans the Emperor commanded his Eparch Olympius to command upon their allegiance, Martin the Bishop of Rome and all the rest of the Italian Bishops to embrace the heresy of the Monothlites; 
Martin.  which if they should refuse to do that then he should take order, that the Bishop of Rome might be taken prisoner; or if that could not be done without great uproar, by reason of the good will and defence of the people, (for much was the authority and majesty of the emperors decayed with the people of Rome, by there far distance, there small Empire in Italy being cooped in a narrow corner, by the Lomberdes, their heresies and ungodliness; and finally because they had made the seat of their Lieutenant to be at Ravenna) that then he should cause him suddenly to be slain by some sleight, he came to Rome declared the emperors commandment, the which the Bishop refused to accomplish, but to apprehend him the Eparch durst not, and of murdering him he miss. But two years after Theodorus the Eparch entered the City, apprehended him, sent him in Irons unto the Emperor, who confined him into the Chersonesus of Thrace, where for poverty he perished. Anno. 667. 
Diac.  Constans the Emperor after he had unfortunately fought in Italy with the lombards, came unto Rome the Bishop Vitalian with all the clergy going forth six miles to receive him, who shortly after deceived them, for he spoiled the Church called Pantheon of all the sacred ornaments, 
Vitalian.  and uncovered it taking of the tile of copper, yea and all the ancient pieces of work, either of copper or marble, that he could find in the whole City, and sent to Constantinople: so that he defaced Rome more in seven days, than all the Barbarians had ever done since the declination of the Empire: and the like havoc he made in all the the Church's subject unto him in Italy, Sicileye, and Sardinia, and yet for all this Peter drew not the sword, for he yet remembered how bitterly his master had once checked him before for fight, Anno Dom. 700. justinianus the Emperor (saith Diaconus) commanding Constantine the Pope to come unto him honourably received him, 
Constantine.  and sent him back; whom he being prostrated on the ground, desired to be an intercessor unto God for his sins, renewed all the privileges of his Church, why then the privileges were first given by the Emperor and not by God himself. But that the Emperor fell down at the Bishop's feet, it was done in respect not of his greatness, but of his godliness: a thing usually done by great princes unto ancient Monks and hermits, renowned for their strict life, and rare piety, whereof all Christian histories yield us store of examples: and this to be so doth his request of intercession unto GOD for his sins manifestly show. But to return again to our practice about Anno Domini. 690. another justinian the Emperor sent Zacharias his Protospatharius or high Constable, into Italy, for to bring Sergius the Bishop of Rome, 
Sergius.  unto him in Irons, because he would not subscribe unto a lewd counsel held by him at Constantinople; 
Sabell.  and he had done it if that the Imperial Army in Italy what for hatred of the Emperor, and the good will of the Pope, and his cause, had not speedily marched to Rome, to withstand his apprehension: yet this Emperor did afterward renew for Constantine the Bishop a confirmation of all the privileges of the Sea of Rome: This Constantine was the first Bishop of Rome (saith Omphrius) the new Chronicler of the Popes, Qui in os ausus est resistere, which durst resist the Emperors of Constantinople to their faces, for he at the importunate petition of the people of Rome, who requested it with great outcries, decreed that the name of Philippicus the Emperor should not be mentioned at the Altar, nor in any writing or records, nor his image set up in their Churches, because he had commanded the Bishop to consent unto his Arrianisme, and the abolishing of the Images of saints. But Paulus Diaconus who lived near that time writeth that statuit populus, the people decreed, and not the Pope.  
About Anno Domini. 7●5. Leo Isauricus the Emperor commanded Gregory the Bishop of Rome, 
Gregory the second  to destroy all the images of the Saints, the which he refused to do. But although the Emperor did execute many therefore, and about that matter banished the patriarch of Constantinople, and had sundry times practised the Pope's death, both covertly, and also by open forces, causing the Eparch to bring his Army before the City of Rome, where he was repelled by the lombards; yet would the Pope by no means be won to consent that a new Emperor should be chosen in Ital●e, the which was now in a good forwardness, the people having slain Martin the governor of the City of Rome, and his son the Lieutenant of Campania, and the Citizens of Ravenna the Eparch: and had chosen them almost in every City new officers: But Gregory would by no means consent thereunto, but won them to be quiet with much a do. But when the Emperor would not desist from forcing of his edict, for the abolishment of Images upon the Romans, and the Italians, Gregory the third successor unto the other, held a Counsel in Italy, wherein he excommunicated the Emperor, and then the Citizens of Rome and all the territory about, called by the name of the Duchy of Rome, revolted from the Emperor, who was negligent in defending them against the lombards, that had sweeped him almost out of all Italy, from Rome to the Alps, and so the Pope became prince of the City and Duchy of Rome, 
S. Sigon. de regno Italiae.  and subject unto no man about the year, 730. And to establish the state of the Roman principality, by stopping of titles, Zacharias the Pope won his Creator Pepine the french king to spoil Aistulfus the king of the lombards of Ravenna, by right whereof, being the siege of the Gothish kingdom and the imperial exarchate in Italy; 
The Pope cannot depose princes.  he claimeth tribute of the Romans, and for to bestow it upon him and his successors, for to take away all quarrel for ever. Thus ye see that the Bishops of Rome were always subject unto the temporal princes of the City, until such time as the revolting people had created him their prince, as all other Bishops in civil sovereign, so that the Popes are not exempted of temporal subjection by the institution of GOD, but by the election of men; as the high priests became to be sovereigns after the return of the jews from Babylon, there being ordained to be the temporal prince: Then seeing by the ordinance of God the Pope was a subject, and by the creation of men being made a sovereign, only over some certain provinces; I cannot see how either by God's Law or man's, he can rightly claim any authority to depose Christian princes at his pleasure, no more than any other subject can his sovereign, or several sovereigns' one another: to grant either of which is so absurd, that I should show myself to have very little wit, if I should go about to refute either, as though any man that had common sense would doubt of them. For to reason that Sixtus Quintus, because he is secular sovereign over these provinces which are called the patrimony of Peter, may therefore depose all other Christian princes, is as good an argument as if I should say, ELIZABETH is Queen of England, therefore she may depose the prince of the patrimony, and all other Christian princes. So that by proving my first proposition, that Christ gave unto Peter and his successors no sovereignty secular, I have also convinced the second, that they can not deprive Christian princes of their principalities. 
The Pope cannot depose the temporal sovereign  Neither is the Pope's claim any thing advanced by those two sayings of Christ unto Peter, which I do find alleged by Gregory the seventh, when he first of any Pope deposed Henry the fourth Emperor, as the warrant of his doings. 
Plati.  The first is feed my sheep, wherein he did not, said Gregory exempt Kings. And the other, whatsoever thou shalt bind on the earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou dost lose in the earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. For I have proved before that Christ his kingdom was spiritual; and so a spiritual charge of souls he committed to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles and their successors, and no Empire over the bodies and goods of any men. But Doctor S●u●ders takes great hold of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Poimaine which the Apostle useth when Christ bade Peter the second time to feed his sheep for that word (saith he) signifieth also to govern. It doth indeed properly signify to keep sheep, as we term it wherein we include not only the feeding of them, but also the care of looking to them that they take no harm, the dressing of them when they be ill; and all other things belonging to the charge and duty of a shepherd; and properly no other signification hath it; but by a Metaphor to show with how great care, mildness and lenity kings ought to govern their subjects. Homer and Plato do often call kings shepherds of the people; and so likewise the sacred scriptures. In the twentieth of the Acts we have the same words: where we read, Therefore look unto yourselves, and the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops (and overseers) in greek poimaine the Church of God which he hath purchased him with his blood. Now that the Apostles or any Bishops had any secular power, Pighius himself doth deny, as long as the temporal princes had not received the Gospel: so that this word can by no means import any earthly superiority. And in this Oration Paul doth plainly declare, what kind of kingdom Christ's is, when he saith to govern the Church of God, which he purchased with his blood: for he purchased none with his blood but t●●s spiritual kingdom; for as GOD he was possessed o● the Empire of the whole world from the beginning. But the place of binding and losing we have examined already, and proved that it cannot be understood otherwise then Christ himself doth interpret it, in the twentieth of john, whose sins ye shall remit are remitted; and whose sins ye shall retain are retained, and a receiving into the Church and kingdom of heaven, and a shutting out of it. And therefore he saith; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and not, shall be bound in earth, lest any man should dream that he gave Peter secular power over earthly Empires, and that all the commandments and ordinances and decrees of his successors, touching worldly matters, should be received and kept, throughout the whole world. Neither if the Pope had any such authority given him by any general Counsel, 
A general counsel cannot depose Princes.  as I am assured he hath not (for as for the canon made in the counsel of Lateran, we will anon make a large several treatise thereof, were it good and sufficient to bind all Princes to obedience, because it lieth not in the power of a general counsel to dispose of secular matters. For seeing general counsels do altogether consist of persons ecclesiastical, and they do allow no temporal prince any voice therein; and that all the bishops that are assembled there, do sit as Bishops & spiritual Lords, & not as temporal, & that they be secular subjects, & not sovereigns'; & that the kingdom of the Church is a distinct kingdom, as all the Catholics say, from the kingdoms of the world; It is as absurd to hold that they can makes laws touching temporalities, to be observed of all temporal Princes under temporal pains; as if a mad man would affirm that the assembly of the three states of France, may ordain statutes for the Queen's majesty of England, & her realm, and that they are bound in conscience to observe all laws made there. For doubtless the temporal and the ecclesiastical kingdoms are as several kingdoms as England & France, & which have more alliance together then the other two, because they are both secular, both bodily, both ruled, by one sword, but of the other the one is spiritual, the other bodily, the one of the world, the other of heaven; the one swayed by the civil and material sword, ●he other by the spiritual, the one slaying the soul, the other the body. But now I would not have any fond man to imagine, that I do go about to spoil the temporal prince of his high prerogative, in ordaining of wholesome laws, for the maintenance of the true faith of Christ; and the sincere observation of all the rest of his holy commandements; the which I do think him bound in conscience to do: but that I do firmly believe and openly profess, that by the right given him by God, he may punish all persons, both ecclesiastical and temporal, within his dominions, that shall offend, either in faith or manners, by fine, imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of lands and goods, attainder of blood, death, or finally any other temporal pains; as the noble princes of this land have always used to do. And therefore justice Brian in Decimo of Henry the seventh doth call the King a mixed person, for he is (saith Brian) a person united with the priests of holy Church. But I deny him the administration of gods holy sacraments, and the exercise of the spiritual sword▪ which I do appropriate unto the ecclesiastical officers. Wherefore much less can the bishops in a general counsel, give away the crowns of their Kings; seeing according to the afore rehearsed rule of the Canon law no man can give that right unto another, which he hath not himself. But if there were ordained a body politic of all the Christian princes and states, what they being assembled in a counsel general might do is another question, the which we will leave to be disputed of them that shall see this hap institution. And in the mean time they must pardon us, if we do not lightly believe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes; seeing we can find no warrant therefore, neither in the scriptures, the ancient counsels, the old fathers, the practice of the Church of God, neither before Christ, neither seven hundredth years after him, although there reigned many Idolatrous, heretical, and wicked Princes. Of the jewish Kings very few were good, but rather such men as GOD had straightly commanded that they should not spare, if they were their Brothers, or such a friend as he loved as dearly as his own soul; but that his hand should be first upon him to stone him to death, and yet we do not read that any one of them was deposed, by the high Priests, or his subjects; armed against him by them: And yet were they so zealous men of their dignity, that they would in no wise suffer the King to usurp aught upon him, in so much that one of them openly withstood Ozias the King, 
The history of king Ozias handled.  that would unlawfully execute his office, in offering incense unto GOD; neither doth the expelling of this King out of the temple by the Priests, because God had for his proud part stricken him with leprosy, and that thereupon he sequestered himself from company, and left the government of matters of state unto his son, prove aught against the prerogative of Princes, 
The text saith 2. Coro. 26.20. that they caused hastily to departed thence & he was even compelled to go out.  as the English author of the ecclesiastical discipline doth infer. For he was not expelled out of the temple because he offered incense, but because the wrath of GOD had made him a leper, the which kind of men by the express commandment of GOD might not converse with other. And if we will receive the report and assertion of josephus, a learned Priest and historian of the jews, the priests did not thrust him out of the temple, but admonished him to departed, the which he did soon obey when he saw himself made so loathsome on a sudden & was astonished with the manifest wrath of God; and hereunto the text seemeth to assent which saith and hastily they expelled him etc. But he himself also made haste to go out, because he had presently felt the plague or struck of God. But that he was as some seem to say, deposed of his Kingdom therefore, we do read neither in the scriptures, nor in josephus. But only this saith Paralyp. So King Ozias was a leeper even to his dying day, and dwelled in an house by himself, because he was full of leprosy, for the which he had been cast out of the house of the Lord, Furthermore joathan his son governed the king's house, and judged the people of the land. And almost the same words we read in the book of the kings, So that by the words of the text it doth not appear that he was either deposed or did give up the Kingdom, but only abandoned all resort, by reason of his contagious sickness and ignominy, gave up the maneging of matters of state and the princely port unto his son, and so accordingly whosoever doth mark diligently the supputiaton of years, which the book of the Kings maketh, shall manifestly see, that he reckoneth Ozias his reign even until his dying day. Neither if that Ozias had been deposed because of his leprosy, would it so much further their cause, as they feign in saying that heresy is inward leprosy, then, Idolatry is. And yet can they not find that ever any King of the jews was deposed by the high Priest for Idolatry, nor any Christian prince by the Pope for any cause for the space of seven hundredth years after Christ, although those times yielded many ungodly Princes, as we have showed you before of Emperors, one flatly fallen, from the faith unto Paganism, sundry Arrians, some Monothlets, and Eutiches, and many cruel persecutors of the Catholics. And so likewise many of the Ostrogothes in Italy were Arrians, and many more in the same province of the Lombard kings. And yet a far longer race of the Westgotish Kings in Spain. But if any man will rub his face and say, that the bishops of Rome in those ages either had not so much knowledge in the word of GOD, or else so great zeal as there successors since, all men that shall hear them will shout at them. They writ that when Nero whipped senators, executed noble men, spoiled Citizens, wasted provinces, without cause or colour, and finally in all things made his lust law: he triumphing at this jollity, boasted that never any man before him did know what an Emperor might do. 
Act. 5.  Certes the holy and learned fathers, in ancient time knew not this divinity, that when there princes wrongfully oppressed them, they should straightway cast off their yoke, but rather patiently bear whatsoever ill should be inflicted on them for God's cause. 
Mat. 5.  They remembered that the Apostles from whom they set their light and learning, being whipped at a convocation of the jewish priests and Elders, went away rejoicing because they were counted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of jesus. 
Athanatius in epla. 2. ad ulit vit Agent  They had not forgotten the saying of their Saviour Mat. 5. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for righteousness; for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Ye are blessed when men shall curse you, and persecute you, and lying, shall say all manner of evil against you for me. Rejoice and be glad because your reward in heaven is abundant: for so they persecuted the Prophets that were before you. When Constantius the wicked Emperor urged Hosius the holy bishop of Cordula, the bishop of Rome his deputy, and the three hundredth bishops assembled at Sa●dica, with bitter banishment (as he had already served many of there colleges) unless they would subscribe to the wicked error of Arrius: they all refused to do it, but they did not menace the Emperor with deposition, if he would not relinquish his false faith, and revoke the godly banished bishops: burr contrariwise confessed unto him. Non nob●s fas est imperium in te●riis tenere it is not lawful for us to hold Empire on the earth. And not withstanding all his hurtful wickedness; yet they affirmed that he that should cast but a malignant eye at his Empire did resist the ordinance of God; so far were they from thinking that his subjects might openly take arms against him. Don john De Austria in his wars in the low countries, 
Don john's ensigns.  bare in his ensign a devise of a cross with this word. In hoc signo vicin Turcos, in hoc signo vincam hereticos, with this sign I overcame the Turks, with this sign I will vanquish the heretics: so if the latter Popes had said, with this virtue and weapon of patience, our ancestors overcame the heathen, and heretical Emperors; and with the same we will overcome the Emperors that will intrude upon our temporalities, perhaps their state had not been now so staggering: for whosoever shall mark the course of the history of the Church of God, shall find that it hath grown great by patience, but hath rather decreased then increased by arms and violence. Moreover if the Popes will vouchsafe to read their old records, they shall see and understand that such of their predecessors as armed themselves with patience, and used none other but the spiritual sword and that also sparingly and seldom; were had of all men in greater reputation and reverence, and could do more in the world, than their successors, that after the spiritual sword which Christ had delivered unto them sharp and dreadful to be used only in extremity, & but in his cause & quarrel, had through there continual abusing and drawing at every light private brawl, became so hagled, blunt and contemptible, that every boy laughed at it, did furiously fall to catching of the secular sword out of the temporal magistrates hand. Like as they report of julius the second whether merely devised or done in deed I (saith Ferou) know not: that when he went in person into the field against the French, armed with a pair of keys in his hand, and a sword by his side, he threw his keys into the river of Tiber, and therewith all drawing his sword said: seeing Peter's keys have done no good, Paul's sword shall help me. And surely therein the Pope fared like, joakin the King of juda who trusted in a rotten reed the king of Egypt to defend him against the Assyrian: And so they incurred with him the curse pronounced in that place by the Prophet jeremy. 
The practice of deposing Princes never came of charity.  Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm. And because Cardinal Hosius will have Luther's doctrine tried, whether it be good or bad by the root that bred it, I pray let us also see from what root this practice of deposing of Princes did spring. There be two roots saith Agustine upon john, and out of him Hosius, which two husbandmen the holy Ghost and the devil, set in man's heart, the one charity or love, the other inordinate desire; 
Henry.  of the one cometh all good of the other all ill, now whether of these roots brought forth deposition of Princes I pray let us consider. The first Pope that did it in practice about Anno Domini 108●. was Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth Emperor, because he being exasperated against the Pope, for excommunicating of five of his chief counsellors; whom he thought ruled him to much, and for commanding him upon pain of excommunication to appear before him at Rome, the twesday in second week of Lent; to purge himself of such chrimes as his rebellious subjects the Saxons had accused him of; 
See Platina and Sigonius.  had called a counsel in Germany where Gregory was deposed being accused there by Hugh Blank a Cardinal, and many Italian bishops, of Necromancy, heresy, lechery simony, tyranny, and I know not what else, nor force how truly: but most true it is, that this was the cause of the emperors deposing, as it doth appear by the Pope's bull wherein we find these words. Because he hath too audaciously and rashly laid hands on the Church (the Pope speaks to Peter) and because he hath not obeyed my authority as becometh a Christian. etc. therefore in thy name I do accurse him, depose him, discharge all men of obedience towards him, and forbidden them to obey him, that all nations may know that thou art Peter. etc. Now to depose the Emperor because he had caused him to be deposed, was this charity or inordinate desire of revenge? did any of his predecessors before him the like? God saith revenge is mine, & I will repey it: and S. Paul, charity seeketh not her own. I pray you tell me what Charity was it towards the Church & Christendom, rather than he would forsake his sea, yea or revoke his choleric censure, that he would see all Germany and Italy, 
See Sabel  almost utterly destroyed by civil wars, his favourers in Germany broken in seven bloody battles, his two Idol Emperors slain, and all the forces of his Italian staff & stay, the mighty countess Mawde utterly defayted; great part of the Citizens of Rome consumed by three years siege, the Burgo San: Pietro twice sacked and defaced, all the house of the Corsy, the noblest Citizens of Rome and his fastest friends razed to the ground: the miracle of the world the septisolium, taken and deformed, his nephew taken prisoner, the city of Rome twice set on fire, by Suiscardo, whom being excommunicated & now reconciled, he had procured to come to discharge him out of the castle of San. Angelo: with two huge wastes, remain yet to be seen at this day in the fairest part of the City for a perpetual reproach for the first deposing of Princes: & yet would not his stout heart stoop, but when at the importunate prayers of the oppressed Romans', he had granted to receive the Emperor into grace upon his submission, he afterward utterly refused it, because the Citizens requested, that the Emperor might do it, in his imperial robes and fled first into the Castle San: Angelo, and afterward unto Salerne, where he died in voluntary banishment, not daring to abide at Rome, for fear of the Citizens who for these manifold calamities with which he had overwhelmed them, did deadly hate him. What an hard heart had he, that would not relent at so many and extreme mischiefs and miseries? Did he not blush to remember how the noble Quintus Metellus a pagan, being wrongfully forbididden fire and water by Apulieus the Tribune of the commonalty, to be revenged on Meitellus for putting him out of the senate for his lewd life; chose rather willingly to go into banishment, having the stronger faction, then that any tumult should be stirred up in the City for him. Again how many of his predecessors did for righteousness sake suffer banishment, imprisonment, yea and painful death, when they might have shrouded and saved themselves, we have already showed by many examples. And also Marcellinus a pagan doth report, that Constantius the Emperor could hardly in the dead time of the night carry Liberius out of the City of Rome, with great difficulty, for the good will of the people that burned in his love: so that it is likely that if the Bishop would with force have resisted, he would have been to hot and to heavy for the Emperor to carry away. But neither God nor Devil had yet reveeled unto the Bishop of Rome, this new dignity of Gregory's: 
See Platina and Sigon.  that they could by Apostolical power bind all men, not only in spirit but also in body, and all the goods of fortune: that they might depose Emperorus for their pride & contumacy, in not obeying of their commandments as Gregory did Henry, and give the Empire unto another, for his humility and obedience, as Gregory did to Rodulph, because he had promised to give his sons pledges for assurance that he would stand to the Pope's arbitrement: for they yet knew not this reason that Gregory alleged quite void of reason, in these words. Wherefore (O Peter and Paul) the most holy and chief of the Apostles, confirm by your authority, that which I have spoken, that all men may now at the length understand, that if ye can bind and loose in heaven, that then we also can in earth take away, and give Empieres and Kingdoms, and whatsoever else men have. For if ye can judge those things which do appertain to God, what is to be thought we may do, in these inferior and profane things? And if it belong to you to judge Angels, that reign over proud princes, what is it seemly that we do with their bondmen? Therefore let kings and all princes of the world learn by this Emperors example what ye can do in heaven, and how great ye are with God, and henceforth fear to contemn the commandments of the holy Church. Doubtless these words (now at length may learn) and (henceforth may fear) were very significantly put in by G●●gorie, for indeed before this time, this doctrine was unknown to the world, as also that learned Hermit of Rome the Pope's Chronicler Omphrius, a man inferior to none in the knowledge of the Roman antiquities, doth confess in his book of Cardinals in these words: Bishops cardinals did at the first take their place among other Bishops, according to the anciency of their creation; but afterward by little and little they came to take place above all Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans, Primates & patriarchs, which began to be used by little and little, about the time of Gregory the seventh, & Urban the second in which times the election of the Pope (whose authority did then begin to be supreme as well in spiritual things as temporal, the emperors being depressed or trodden down) was taken out of the hands and power of the Emperors, and granted especially to the Cardinals. And anon after a Priest Cardinal was a mean place between a Bishop & other Priests not Cardinals. But in the time of Alexander the third under whom the Church of Rome was advanced to the highest top or step in earth, the most mighty Emperor Frederick Redbeard, & he also a most infestious foe of the Church of Rome, being trodden under foot, & vanquished, and forced to desire peace of the Church: then first contrariwise Priest Cardinals were made of Bishops, for the dignity of the Cardinals did still grow with the dignity of the Church & Bishops of Rome, but that was greatest in those days. Thus far Omphrius. But because Platina & others do affirm, that the Pope & the Emperor first fell out, about simony or investing of Bishops, let us see how injuriously herein, the Pope dealt with the Emperor. It doth appear both by the Books of the canon law & also by Sigonius and other historians the Pope's chief favourers, that Pope Hadrian gave unto Charles the great the king of the french men, & Emperor of Rome, & Leo the eight unto Otho the great the king of the Tuischtmen & Emperor for ever the investure of the Bishops of Rome, & of all other Bishops, within their dominions decreeing that no Bishop chosen by the clergy and people should be consecrated, unless he were first nominated & invested (that is had the crosier and ring delivered him) by the Emperor, this authority & privilege enjoyed all Emperors from Charles the great unto this Henry being the 17 in succession; and that he used it no otherwise it is apparent by the election of the Bishop of Cullen by the clergy & the people, a little while before this broil, whereof we do read mention made in Lambertus Snatchburgensis. A thing always used in England, that neither Bishop nor abbot, should be chosen without a congee de ler, or licence to choose, first obtained of the king, nor reputed for Bishop before the king had confirmed him. So likewise Hosius contra Brentium doth affirm, that the kings of Poland have always had the nominating of all Bishps with in their kingdom. Now of this ancient part of his patrimony of the Empire, would Gregory spoil Henry, yea and all lay men, making a decree that he should be accursed, that did take any ecclesiastical dignity or benefice, at the hand of any lay man, 
See Platina and Sabell.  and did also excommunicate the lay man that should give any, now I pray you which of them two, showed most charity? Henry that for quietness sake was contented to lose the right which he and his ancestors had so long time held, in confirming of the Bishops of Rome in the cause and bloody schism of Alexander, Gregory's immediate predecessor? or Gregory that was not contented and satisfied with this rare indulgence of the Emperor, in one and the greatest Bishopric, but would depose him unless he would also surrender his right in all the rest, & either would have his will or else would set all Christendom in an uproar? And put case he had sold two or three small bishoprics as his enemies did charge him for, the great electors sees, they themselves being his enemies confessed he had not sold▪ was that a sufficient cause to make him forsake him and his successors, for ever an ancient right and inheritance, belonging to the imperial crown, as the presenting unto benefices, is an inheritance of many secular subjects? And could the Church of Christ be so much endamaged thereby, as with thirty years bloody wars, in all parts of Germany and Italy, through the troubles whereof, neither the Popes nor other Bishops could employ their functions? But letting this pass; 
Philippe.  the next deposition was of Philip the Emperor for invading Peter's patrimony, before he was Emperor, and while he was duke of Tuscan. But because some will say he was never Emperor, because through the Pope's menaces but five of the electors had chosen him, we will let him pass and come unto Otho 
Otho.  the Duke of Saxon: whom two of the electors afterward at the great instance of the Pope, had chosen Emperor, and whom he almost immediately after he had crowned him deposed, because he invaded the lands of his pupil and vassal the king of Naples. Did this come of charity or of a private quarrel? It is apparent that the Popes used not nor now do to censure any prince, for enuading of his neighbour, unless he were a vassal or privileged prince of his. And then to make up the good, three comes on a row Fredelicke the second Emperor, 
Frederick  and also king of Naples, for investing of Bishops in Naples, and levying money of the clergy. And after the controversy was ended, again, because he did not perform his vow to go into the holy land; and that also satisfied for making wars against the rebellious lombards, or to make the very worst of it, for practising with the Frangipanes and other Romans to revolt from the Pope, whom he disinherited, did secretly aid his rebels in Lombardy. And did not flesh and blood and private revenge reign in all these actions? were any of these causes so weighty, that for them should be raised up the pernicious factions of Guelses and Ghibbelines? to set at enmity for ever, not only every prince▪ province and City of Italy but also every name and family, for to embrace their murdering sword. The last deposed Emperor was Lewes the fourth, 
Lewes. See Platina and Navel.  because he intermeddled in Italy before the Pope had crowned him (a usual thing) and that which was the very cause indeed, because he openly professed himself a favourer of the Ghibbelines, and namely the viscount whom the Pope deadly hated, and had excommunicated for taking arms against the Guelses, and put the Florentines, and the neopolitans and the other Guelses in fear, lest he would saith Platina ex●ct of them jura imperia●a the rights belonging to the Empire. And who seethe not here partiality and not charity? Moreover Peter 
Peter.  the king of Arragon was deposed and his kingdom of Arragon given unto Charles of Valois the French kings brother, because he had received the Sicilians, revolting from the tyranny of Charles the Duke of Anjou whom the Pope had placed prince there. And doth not also smell of private revenge? Is this the common good, that Pighius beareth us in hand, the Church of Christ reapeth by this prerogative of the Pope, that he doth thereby revenge the private displeasures of himself, his friends and vassals. At the same time the french king Philip le Beau, had spoiled Edward the fi●st, king of England injuriously of the greatest part of Guienne, and also Guy the Ear of Fuaunders almost of his whole Earldom, and was not deposed therefore. The cause is apparent, Sicily was held of the Church of Rome, and so was neither Guienne nor Flaunders. But although he escaped scotfree for these wrongs, and the long detaining in prison the Earl of Flaunders, and two of his sons, yet he was deprived of his kingdom by Pope Boniface the eight, 
Philip the fair.  for imprisoning of a french Bishop, that railed at him and menaced him, when he could not win him to grant to go with an Army into the holy land, on the which message the Pope had sent him unto the king as saith Platina. But the french Chronicles report that the king caused him to be apprehended at home, at his own house, for that he understood, that he used often to speak very ill of him, and to rail outrageously on him, and delivered him unto his primate the Bishop of Tolouse to punish him with his advise. The kingdom of France was given unto Albert the Emperor, perhaps for a reward of his wickedness in slaying of his sovereign Adolph the Emperor; for other punishment I do not find that Pope did put him unto therefore. 
See Mun●ter cos●●●mog. lib. 3. in Al. 2.  But yet I do not doubt but the fault was more heinous than imprisoning of a Bishop, for railing against his prince and Lord. Yea and that God did so account it he made it manifest unto the world by his severe punishment of all the conspirators. For Albert himself was murdered by his own cozen german; the Archbishop of Ments found dead sitting in his chair. The Bishop Stasburge was slain by a peasant at Fontange in Brisgow. The Earl of Linengen died ma●de. The Earl of Sweibrucken was drowned in a river. The Earl of Ochsenstein had his death's wound in the battle. And the Earl H●●gerloch was slain on the way by Otho the Duke of Danao. But to proceed Lewes th' 12 of France was excommunicated, denounced a schismatic, and his kingdom and goods exposer for a common spoil to all Christians and the like penalty pronounced on all them that did or should take his part or aid him. 
Lewes the twelfih.  And therefore john the king of Navarre lost his kingdom, for procuring of a general counsel, to be called and held, without the consent of the Pope against the Pope that there his infestious foe Iul●us the second might be deposed, & an other more friendly placed in his room. And doth not this altogether smell of private revenge and not of charity? But perhaps you will say, it was a foul part of him, that would be called the most Christian king, to sow sedition and schism throughout all Christendom, for his own private quarrel: and that this doing of his was so ill thought of, by most of the pri● 〈…〉 of Christendom, that they entered therefore into league against him, and had almost set him besides his saddle. In truth I can neither praise the practice nor the policy of the French, who sought to repress the injurious attempts of the Pope against him rather by colour of law, to the disturbance of all Christendom then by arms, and invading the Pope's territories (as Philippe the modern king of Spain wisely did in the like case) and fondly thought it less envious, 
Anno Domini. 556.  and more agreeable unto his surname of the most Christian king, which his ancestors had purchasesed, by defending the Popes and Peter's patrimony with arms; to raise up a schism, then to force the Pope to friendship by material force.  
But that the Pope compelled him to this outrage, all writers do confess. For first contrary to the league made at Cambray, between him & the Emperor, the French king, the king Spain, and the Duke of Ferara, against the Venetians who had encroached upon them all▪ he having gotten all that he claimed, 
●ee iovius ●n vita Al●hons. & ●●uiciardi●●o.  not only made peace with the Venetians, without the consent of his confederates, but also excommunicated, and with arms invaded the fast friend of the French, the Duke of Ferara, because that he not having yet recovered all his right of them, would not cease to molest the Venetians: And also he left no stone unturned, to turn the French out of Milan an Genna, the which he at the length brought to pass. And was not he then the author of all his tragedy? Moreover this Pope's brother's son, Duke of Urbine cruelly murdered of emulation Alidosius a Bishop, a Cardinal, 
See iovius ●n vit. Alphons & Guic. Boleslaw.  and Legate of Bologna, almost in the Pope's sight, and was put to no penance therefore. But Boleslaw the hardy king of Poland, was deprived by Pope Gregory the seventh of his kingdom, and also the country of the honour to have a king (in the which dishonour it continued 200 years) flurrying with his own hand in his fury Stanislaw, the Bishop of Craccow for excommunicating him, yea and interdicting the whole City of Craccow, to make him the more odious, because he openly kept another man's wife, and for adultery, a thing which as it should seem by Cromerus, as common in Poland in those days as the cart way. Yea those noble women that were honest were forced to forsake there own houses, 
See Cromerus hist. Pola. lib. 4.  for fear of force and ravishment, yea and it was common in Italy and passed unpunished in meaner men, than princes. But yet in very truth the kings fact was very foul, and made worse by the fury of his fellows that chopped in pieces the slain corpses and cast it to the crows. And yet perhaps David did almost all ill in defiling of a noble man's bed, while he was in his service in the field, and afterward commanding him to be murdered for his amends, (but so dealt not Bolislawe with Stanislaw; and if the qualities of the persons be not equal, than the manner of the doing doth overmatch, the one being done without any provocation, and of advised malice, the other upon a great ignominy & unwonted with kings, offered him and upon a sudden, while his blood was hot. which seven years continual absence from his country in foreign wars a little before had overheated. And yet David lost not his Kingdom therefore: Neither do we read of any realm interdicted for murdering of their Kings, whereof we have almost infinite examples; or any man deposed for intruding into them by such wickedness, unless perhaps the murdered Prince were the Pope's vassal. So that this zeal in severe punishing of princes for misusing them of the clergy, I fear me may be imputed rather to a partial favour towards them of their own coat, and done for their own security, then for zeal of justice. Like as our sergeant at London are an hunded times more hot to have one hanged that hath slain the basest Yeoman of theirs, than another that hath murdered his master, or the best noble man within the land. james the fourth the Scottish King flew his father in the field, and had noething said unto him therefore; but was excommunicated for aiding of his ancient Alie the french King; whom the Pope loved not, neither could his lamentable loss of life in that quarrel quench the Pope's Choler, but that he persecuted him when he was dead long time, denyning his dead body burial; but yet that is no sin against the holy ghost, for to aid on denounced a schismatic by the Pope, nor to bear arms against the captain of a croysy it doth appear by that we do read in Mariners his history of Spain; when Peter the king of Arragon coming to aid the Earl of Tolouse, and the Albigenses against whom the Pope had sent a croysy was slain in battle by the Earl of Monsfort general of the Croysy, and that he would not deliver james the son of Peter, who was brought up with him and should have married his daughter, but for this mischance unless he would swear that he would not revenge his fathers, death, the Pope upon complaint forced Monsfort by sharp censures of excommunication, to set him at liberty without any such promise, that the Pope (it was juno Centius the third) might show that he was another God that would have mercy where he would, and be merciful to whom it pleased him, and that he doth nothing of desert but all motu proprio, as they use to say; but yet perhaps he showed grace unto james for his fathers, Peter's sake, who had purchased before hand his pardon for dying in the field, in the succour of a schismatic and heretic by being crowned at Rome by the Pope with a crown made of singing bread or wafers, and by granting unto the Pope the right to present unto all ecclesiastical livings. But to return again to the deposing of Princes. john 
King john  the king of this land, bereft both of kingdom, and life, Arthur his elder brother's son, who had been ordained and proclaimed here apparent by common consent, and kept his Sister with double injury in perpetual prison, and escaped scotfree at the Pope's hands: but when he would not accept for Archbishop Simon Langton a Cardinal of the Church of Rome, advanced to that office through the Pope's extraordinary dealing, he had his whole realm interdicted (which sustained no harm for accepting him for King against right) and also himself was deposed therefore. And what reason was there but that the King might aswell maintain for archbishop the bishop of Norwich the faithful precedent of his counsel, and a man whom the Pope could not justly mislike being first chosen at Ganterburye by the Prior, & almost the whole covent as the Pope Simon Langton his Cardinal chosen after the other, & at Rome by a few of the covent that I may omit that no Bishop could ever be chosen in this realm, without the King's licence, nor being chosen counted bishop before the King had confirmed him. And if the Pope said that the covent chose Norwitch at Canterbury for fear of the King, because they had first elected their superior: might not the King as truly say that they chose Langton at Rome for fear of the Pope, for did he not force them to a new election, yea & threatened them who were afraid of the king's displeasure if they chose not Langton if Langton was an ill man, why was the Pope so importunate to have him Archbishop; & if he were a good man, why did that Pope shortly after himself excommunicate him? what bare rule here but flesh & blood? Did Langton so far pass Norwich that he would do more good to the Church of England, than Norwich could do if he were placed Archbishop; then the ceasing of all public service of God, & administration of the sacred Sacraments, for the space of six years; (for so long the interdict lasteth) throughout the whole land could do harm? how many souls may a man probably think were lost through this long irreligiousness which otherwise might have been saved▪ I omit the great murdering of priests, the banishing of bishops, the rasing of Abbes, Churches & Chapels, the manifold miseries massacres & wastes, that I know not whether this more wilful or woeful interdict brought unto this whole land▪ But ye will say that before the land was interdicted the king had driven out of the land the monks of Canterbury, & seized on all their land, & goods. And afterward did the like to the Bishops that published the interdict. And also turned out of all▪ such of the religious & spiritual people, as did favour the Pope's proceedings; & all this before he was deposed by the Pope. But yet all these mischiefs proceeded of the Pope's indirect dealing, to make his Cardinal archbishop, and if the Pope would have relinquished that action, the king had soon been appeased. And can any indifferent man thing that the king had not just cause, to be displeased with the Covent of Canterbury who first chose scecretly in the night, without his congedelier) there Superior Archbishop and also privily sent him to Rome without the king's notice, to be confirmed of the Pope; and then misliking of their own doings elected with the King's licence his favourite Norwich, whom they afterward rejected, & without the kings licence chose at Rome Langton, one whom the King knew not; And did not the Pope offer the King such a wrong, as hath been done never before, nor since that time to cause the covent to choose a bishop without the kings congedelier, & that to at Rome by a few of the covent sent thither in messages without their Prior. And if ye do think the king dealt rigorously in banishing the bishops that interdicted the land, and in ceasing on their goods that favoured the Pope's actions. How can you excuse the Pope's cruelty in interdicting the whole land, whereof one half did take his part. And feign would I know of you whether it proceeded of charity that the Pope would not release his interdict and censures when the King offered to receive Langton, 
See Matthew of Paris.  restore the banished men, and fully to satisfy all men for their losses, unless he would also become his vassal, and make his realms of England and Ireland tributary for ever unto the see of Rome; was this charity, or covetousness and ambition. And again came this of Charity that the Pope, who stood so stiff for the restitution of the losses of the clergy, before the king had subjecteth himself and his Realms unto him, did after that his own turn was served, force the bishops to take half their due, and the rest of the clergy to bear their own damages without one penny of recompense; And yet see more partiality in this Pope. First he excommunicated & deposed the king, because he would not accept at his commandment Langton, for Archbishop; & anon after excommunicated Langton and the bishops, and the Barons his confederates; because they would force the King to perform the oath which his own legate had commanded the King to swear, at the atonement making for the restoring of the ancient laws of the land▪ if the laws were unjust and it was a wrong to constrain the King to restore them; why did he force the King to swear the restitution of them. But if they wear just, good, and godly, and for the public profit why did he not rather assist then excommunicate them that sought to force the king to keep his bodily oath, made unto him and them, the which he had also done at his coronation, yea, and had made (at the time of the peace with the Pope) a Charter of them which also this Pope himself confirmed. Now the case was altered (Although indeed this case was of greater moment) and the Pope must still pleasure his friends. First his cardinal was to be advanced to an Archbyshoppricke, and then the king his new vassal was to be enfranchised of all oaths and honesty, and upholden and maintained with both sworde● in all tyranny and villainy. If any credit is to be given to all the Catholic Chronicles of that age, And this I speak not for that I do like or allow the rebellion of the Barons, 
Lib. 9  but to show the irreligious pertiality of the unjust, perverse passionate Pope. I do also find in Cromerus that the archbishop of Gnesne did excommunicate Boleslaw the bald one of the Polonian Princes Duke of Legnitz for taking prisoner the bishop of Preslen and certain other of that Church and detaining them in prison: And when that for all this he would not release them without ransom, Pope Alexander the fourth willed the archbishop to proclaim a Croly against him in Polen, and the archbishop of Magdenburge another in Germany. But these excommunications for imprisoning of Prelates to proceed of partiality is manifestly discovered by the same Cromerus who writes, that not far from the same time another archbishop of Gnesne, did excommunicate Boleslawe the chaste duke of the lesser Polen, and interdicted the whole province because certain young Gentlemen had either by the commission or permission of Boleslaw the chaste, taken and kept one month in honourable custody Paul the bishop of Craccow, because that contrary to his calling, he was wholly given to pleasures hunting and lechery, was grievous to his subjects, stubborn towards his Prince, neither would mend his manners for the entreaty & admonishment of his Chapter and Prince; but also took a Nun out of a Nunery & kept her for his Concubine, Yet was the Godly Prince forced to let lose this ungodly prelate & to give him two hundred pound of silver for a mends; whereas if he had given him his desert, a halter, he had prevented a dangerous and bloody Rebellion afterward in revenge hereof procured by the Bishop, also a pitiful wasting of the country done by the Lythuanians at his traitorous instigation. Hitherto ye have heard not of one Prince deposed for Christ's and the common causes, but all for private quarrels, (here I willingly and wittingly omit the deprivations of Sicilian and Neapolitaine Princes, and all other over whom the See of Rome claimeth to have Sovereignty secular) And I can find only four Princes deposed for Religion. The first Raimond Earl of Tolowsen, 
Since the writing of this book Henry king of Navarre hath been deprived of his dominions▪ by the P ●●  whether because he did embrace the Religion of the Albigenses, or because he did not expel them out of his dominions of certainty I know not. The second George Pogrebrot the King of Boemia, for maintaining the doctrine revived by john Hus: And the third and fourth Henry the eight and his daughter Queen Elizabeth, our renowned Princes and dread Sovereigns. And although some hot headed Catholics Roman will perhaps praise the Pope's▪ zeal in deposing of our Princes, yet must they needs all confess, that it was done smally for the weal of him, & his friends here, and therefore done without judgement and discretion. And that these ma●do bulls have killed many, and hurt more of the Pope's friends and favourers, but not done one half penny worth of harm unto them against whom they were sent. And how smally they have been regarded of the Pope's most devoutest children, it may apparently appear by the leagues made by Charles the Emperor, and Charles the french King, with King Henry and her majesty after they were excommunicated and deprived by the Popes; and the one an everlasting league both offensive and defensive to the everlasting shame of such subjects as have sought to revolt, or shall wickedly bear arms against the sovereign in that unjust quarrel. But to conclude, if we do wisely weigh the matter and carefully call to mind all the woeful wars and wastes, massacres, miseries and calamities that this practice of deposing of Princes hath wrought, we shall find that the West Church hath been more wasted and weaken●● thereby, and that it hath caused the murder of more men than all the cruel persecutions of the heathen & heretics, and all the bloody sword of the Turks and Saracens. Thus having showed that this deposing of Princes, is neither authorized by the word of God, nor warranted by the practice of the jewish nor Christian Church, within one thousand years after Christ, nor then devised or since practised, 
The Pope cannot release subjects of their aleagiance.  for the profit and benefit of the Christian common weal: Let us go unto our third proposition that the Pope cannot lose subjects of their natural & dutiful faith and obedience unto their Princes. It is the common opinion of all divines Catholic Roman, that the Pope can not dispense in those things which are ordained by God. But this obedience to princes to be commanded by the law of god, it is most manifest by the places which we have afore alleged out of the sacred Scriptures, in the first proposition. Wherefore as Christ said of Marriage those whom God hath joined together let no man separate, and doth pronounce him to be an adulterer that doth put away his wife, and marrieth another, unless it be for fornication, notwithstanding that Moses had for the hardness of the jews hearts, permitted them many other causes. So likewise may not the Pope separate the subjects married to their prince (for so they are solemnly by a ring in our land) from the Prince for any other causes then such as God hath ordained, and what subject soever shall for any causes put away his Prince and take another committeth rebellion and treason. And as Christ did abrogate that permission of Moses; so likewise must that of the Popes be repealed, and so much the rather because the Pope's constitutions are not so well warranted, as were Moses ordinances, who received them of the very mouth of God himself. And if Christ said he came into the world not to destroy the law but to fulfil it, by what right can the Pope who deriveth his authority from Christ as his substitute and deputy in the earth, claim the authority to make that void which God hath ordained. And feign would I know of you, what faults you find in the word of GOD that subjects may revolt from their Prince, and take them to another, And I am sure you cannot name me one, for doubtless there can be no greater faults in a Prince than Idolatry and tyranny, and yet we have express commandments of GOD from his own mouth unto the people of Israel, for to be obedient unto two notorious Idolaters and triumphs, 
An objection of controversy with the wicked answered.  the one by the Prophet jeremy. Chap. 27. that they should serve Nabuchadonisor; the other by Christ himself, that they should pay tribute unto Cesar. But ye will say that Christ said if thy brother will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Ethnic and Publican or customer, and that we are commanded by Paul not to keep company with the wicken, and by Saint john not to say good morrow to an heretic. And now I would fain know of you how the jews did shun an Ethnic and a publican, did they not pay tributes and customs unto ethnic Emperors, did they they not serve them in war? finally did they not do all duties of loyal subjects? did they not also come unto the publicans to pay their customs, and towlles although they were nor familiar with them, & did usually keep them company? Again when Sant Paul did charge the Corinthians, not to keep company with a brother that was a whoorhunter or covetous, or an idolater or evil tongued or a dunkard, or a violent taker away of other men's goods, and not to eat meat with any such. Do you think the wife that had an husband, the child a father, the bondmand a Lord or master, infected with any of these faults, were thereby incontinently discharged of all duty towards them? yea and bound in conscience speedily to run away from them, and never to do them more service, nor come at them. I am sure ye will say no, for by the canon law they are bound to abide with them being excommunicated, for any other fault then for heresy; And that is a latter edition of the Popes, for there is no such distinction to be found, in the commandment of God, nor his Apostles. But all excommunicated and wicked persons, are alike commanded to be shunned, and no difference to be put between the Idolater, and the whoremonger, So then if Christ and his Apostles did not discharge the wife, the child, or bondman of their duties towards the excommunicated, neither did they also the subjects of their allegiance to their prince: for they be as fast tied to their prince by a bond and law, which only death can undo, as the wife is to her husband, and therefore included in this word (Lex) of the canonical verse that shows who may communicate with excommunicated persons; 
utile lex humile res ignorata necesse.  and also aswell under and subjecteth to their sovereign, as the child unto his father, and the bondman unto his Lord and master; and so are comprised also in the word (humile) of the same verse. But let us return where we left. The Pope deposed Boleslaw the king of Polen for slaying in his rage Stanislaw the Bishop of Craccow; yet when Saul had without cause unjustly and tyrannically slain Achimelech the high priest, and all his whole house save one, that fortunately escaped, yea priests, in number fourscore and seven, all the men, women, little children, sucking babes, oxen, asses, and sheep that were in the City of the priests, called Nob: Yet David whom God had anointed king, and Saul did causeless cruelly persecute from place to place, & sought by all means to bereave of life, yet thought not himself discharged of his allegiance by this detestable murder of the sacred priests of God; but when he had him twice at advantage, saved his life, and told Abisri who desired him to dispatch the tyrant with one blow, slew him not, for who shall stretch forth his hand against the anointed of the Lord, and shall be innocent. As sure as the Lord liveth, unless the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come, that he die or perish in sight, God never be merciful unto me, if I do stretch forth mine hand against the anointed of the Lord. Ye see here a plain assertion of David, that subjects are not released of their allegiance if that their princes fall to ungodliness and tyranny, much less doth he allow that every private man murder him shamefully, yea when a young man brought David news of Saules death, and presented him with Saules diadem and bracelette, David put him to death because he had told him, that at the kings great instance, and entreaty that he might not fall into the hands of his enemies, who environed him round about, he being no Israelite but an Amalachite, had killed him, saying, why didst thou not fear to send thy hand, that thou mightest kill the anointed of the Lord. And again the blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath spoken against thee, saying, I have slain the anointed of the Lord. Wherefore seeing David doth allow no cause of revoulte, and doth think that the subjects are loosed of their allegiance by no fault and wickedness of their prince; by what warrant of the word can the Pope at his pleasure release subjects of their allegiance? And whereas we read in the 34 of job, that GOD doth make the hypocrite man to reign for the sins of the people, or as other translate it, to afflict and plague the people, what a malapert part is it of the Pope, to pull the rod out of God's hand by violence, and to chase him away, whom God hath specially sent to chastise his people. Neither have I sucked this sentence out of mine own fingers ends, but learned it of a learned great Pope, Gregory the great, who interpreting in his morals the late rehearsed place of job, and alleging unto it the thirteenth of Osee, I will give Kings in my fury, hath these words. Quid ergo illos nobis praesse despicimus, quorum super nos regimina ex Domini furore suscepimus? Why then do we despise them to be our princes, whose reigns, and govermentes over us we have received from the wrath of GOD? So that the Pope may not displace the good princes, because they are good princes, nor the evil, because they are placed by GOD to punish his people. And if the canonists hold, that no man can judge the Pope, because he sitteth in the chiefest chair. Who then shall judge the king who is said in 2. Paralip. 9 to be ordained of God to set upon his own throne, and shall any mortal man be so audacious to pull him out of it? And if that no man can excommunicate the Pope because no man is his superior, neither can any man depose a king because no man is his superior. But the objection out of Ruffinus his contimation of Eusebius, that Constantine the great said unto the Bishops assembled in the counsel of Nice. 
A Place of Ruffinus answered.  God hath constituted you priests, and hath given you power to judge also of us, and therefore justly are we judged by you. But what is the uttermost that can be inferred of these words than a spiritual judgement, for seeing he maketh them judges because they are priests, and not princes, how can it import any secular power? for the name of priest signifieth a man separate from secular matters, and wholly dedicated to heavenly and divine. So that to say that Bishops in that they are priests are judges over Kings and Emperors, in matters touching their crown and dignity; is or absurd as if a man should say, the Apostles had power to remit and retain sins because they were fishermen. But as the Bishops showed themselves far from claiming any such authority, by exhibiting up unto him as their sovereign and chief judge bills of complaint one against another. So also did Constantine continually practise among them, and upon them his Empire and sovereignty. So at the counsel at Nice, when the definition of faith was presented unto him by the counsel, not the counsel, but he did set down the temporal punishment, to the infringers thereof, he protesting that he would banish all men that would not obey and embrace it; And so immediately after he banished Arrius, and certain Bishops that refused to subscribe. And afterward as we read in Socrates he made an edict that all books of Arrius his doctrine should be burned, and who soever did conceal any, and not bring them forth to the fire, should die therefore, we also find in Theodoretus, that he banished Eusebius the Bishop of Nicomedia, and Th●●gonus the Bishop of Nice, because they sought to pervert to the Arianism certain Alexandrines, and that he wrote thus to the Citizens of Nicomedia: If there shall be found any among you, that shall audaciously praise and commend these pestilent Bishops their combs shall be soon cut, by the execution of the minister of God, that is by me. So that the office of being Gods minister he kept still after he became a Chrstian; neither was it fallen unto the Church by his embracing of the faith (as Pighius saith.) And although he refused at the beginning of the counsel, to hear and determine the accusations, that the Bishops did put up unto him one against another, of humility and policy, because he would not have that time unprofitably spent about private quarrels which had been appointed for the common cause of Christ and his Church; and therefore burned all their bills of complaint, yet that he dealt with the correction and punishment of Bishops, it is apparent, by that which I have already alleged, and is made much more manifest by that Theodoretus writeth, how the Arrians of Egypt suborned by money certain fellows (because if they had done it themselves, it would have smelled) to accuse Athanasius unto Constantine, that he had set certain impositions in Egypt, and given the money thereof to one, for▪ to raise a commotion in the country, whereupon the Emperor sent for him to appear before him at Constantinople (a long journey for the chief patriarch of the East,) whither he came and cleared himself so substantially, that says Tbeodoretus he recovered again his Church allotted unto him by God, which is as much to say, if he could not have satisfied the Emperor he had lost his Bishopric. After this his enemies accused him again unto Emperor of many great crimes▪ who thereupon following the honourable custom of this land that all men are tried by their peers, commanded the Bishops of those countries to assemble together in counsel at Cesaria in Syria, to hear the matter of Athanasius, whither, when Athanasius came not, because he thought, that seeing most that were assembled were his enemies he should find no justice there: then they having gotten more pretences of slander accused him unto the Emperor of audaciousness and tyranny. See how it was accounted for an audacious part and rebellious, for a patriarch not to appear where the Emperor had commanded him. Neither did there hope deceive them, for then the Emperor being exasperated did in letters unto Athanasius, both declare his displeasure and also commanded him to appear at Tyrus for there should be held a counsel of Bishops. Socrates' reports that he threatened Athanasius that if he would not go of himself, he should be fet by force. He also wrote unto the counsel at Tiru●; in which letters Theodoretus hath these words. I have sent unto you Dionysius, one that hath been consul, for to be precedent of the assembly, that if any man (which I think will not happen) now all little regarding you commandment shall not be there, that there may be one hence from us, that by imperial commandment may banish him, and teach him (mark well these words) that he must not disobey the order that the king hath appointed for the trying of a truth; But when Athanasius who singularly well acquitted himself could yet obtain no justice there, secretly fled unto the Emperor to Constantinople and put up an appeal unto him, Constantine thereupon commanded all the Bishops of the counsel to appear before him at Constantinople, with all speed; the tenor of the mandate Socrotes setteth down thus. That all ye that held the counsel at Tyrus to immediately hasten to appear before us, for to show by deed the sincerity and uprightness of your judgement before me, that is to wit him whom not ye yourselves shall deny to be the proper minister of God. From what power came this commandment to a counsel to appare before the Emperor, and to render a reason unto him of their judgement, as unto the chief minister and officer of God. But to proceed with our history: when the Bishops were come to Constantinople, they for fear of assured conviction gave over their old slanders, and charged Athanasius with a new lie, that he should say unto four Bishops, that he would let the coming of corn from Alexandria unto Constantinople, the which the Emperor over lightly believing, banished Athanasius into Trier in Germany▪ where was now the Pope to depose the Emperor for banishing wrongfully the greatest Patriarch of the East; this was worse than the imprisoning of the Bishop of Apamea by the french king for giving him ill languages. But to return to our matter: Socrates doth write that Athanasius his first troubles began, because he would not receive into the Church Arrius whom the Emperor did now take for a penitent and honest man, whereupon he thus wrote unto Athanasius. Seeing that you do now understand the tenor of the counsel and of my will, see that you do give all men entrance into the Church that are desirous to come in, for if I shall understand, that any man that desireth to be made partaker of the Church, shall either be let by you or forbidden to enter in, I will immediately send one of mine, that by my commandment shall remove you, from your Sea, and give your place unto another. Note that he saith I will send, not the Bishop of Rome his officer; but one of mine own men who shall displace you▪ and place another therein, not by commandment of the counsel or Bishop of Rome, but by my commandment. The like also, writes Socrates, he threatened unto Alexander the Bishop of Constantinople if he would not receive Arrius into the Church. But you will say that the Emperor injuried both Athanasius and Alexander, I deny not that, but although Theodoretus doth blame his overmuch light credulity, and doth excuse it by the like in David against Miphiboseth, yet doth neither he nor any other ancient author accuse him of tyranny, for meddling with matters that he had nothing to do withal, or punishing of them over whom he had no lawful jurisdiction, and also doth refute that you affirm, that Constantine refused to judge Bishops. Now to return again to the history, the same Socrates doth say that when the Arrians had accused Athanasius, Macarius, and other of their complices unto the Emperor of foul facts. Constantine wrote unto his sister's son D●linatius who was then abiding at Antioch 500 miles from Alexandria, to call the parties before him, and to punish them that he should find faulty. But afterward because the Bishops were assembled at Tyrus about the dedication of his new Church at Jerusalem, he referred over the hearing of those matters unto them. So that at the first he had committed both the trial, and the punishment of the greatest Bishop of all the East Church unto a temporal officer of his; the which fact and the other which I have before rehearsed, do plainly prove that Constantine did not account, nor acknowledge his Empire, or himself impaired, or of less command by accepting of the Christian religion, but that he still executed his princely prerogative, on all persons both spiritual & temporal, and still claimed to be the minister immediate of God, & not any under officer of the Bishops of Rome God's vicar on earth, & rightly to, for as Paul saith, 1. Tim. 6. Let all bondmen whatsoever they be that be under yoke, repute their lords worthy of all honour, lest the name of the lord & his doctrine be blasphemed, but they which have believing Lords, let them not contemn them, because they be their brethren, but rather serve them because they be believers, and beloved who are partakers of the benefit Teach these things and exhort them: If any man teach otherwise and doth not yield unto the ●ound speeches of our Lord jesus Christ, and that doctrine which is agreeable to godliness, is proud knoweth nothing, is mindesicke of questions & quarrels, about words. So also might it have been said: Ye Popes & bishops account your princes worthy of all honour, lest the name and doctrine of Christ be evil spoken of, but ye bishops that have Christian Kings contemn them not, because they be Christians, but be the more obedient and dutiful unto them, because they have embraced Chrst, and are partakers of his benefit. This teach and exhort but whosoever teacheth otherwise, teacheth contrary doctrine to Christ, is a proud prelate, and quite void of knowledge And as Peter writeth 1 Epistle 3. Ye bondmen be subject in all fear unto your Lords not only unto them that are good and moderate, but also unto them that are wayward and unreasonable, for this is grace or worthy of favour, if a man do bear sorrows for conscience of GOD, suffering unjustly. So also might it have been rightly said unto the Popes and bishops in Constantine's time, and now also: be ye subject in all fear unto your Princes, not only unto such as are good and gracious, but also unto ungodly and tyrannical, neither release yourselves of your allegiance, for if ye do take and bear wrong quietly for regard of GOD, God will abundantly reward your patience; for the consequent is very strong and good, seeing the things are all together alike and equal; for if the Christian bondmen were not enfranchised, because they were spiritual brothers unto their Lords, neither were the Popes and bishops discharged of subjection unto their Princes, because they were become their spiritual brethren, and if you will to, their spiritual fathers. But they say with Phigl●ius that Christ committed the government of his Church unto Peter, 
What prince Peter was.  and his successors, and therefore all Kings that are of the Church are subject unto the bishops of Rome. And if we grant, this can there be aught else inferred then subjection in causes and censures ecclesiastical, and not in causes and punishments secular and temporal: for what fond Frenchman will say that because in old time the Kings of England were vassals unto the French Kings, for the Duchies of Normandy and Guien, that therefore the crown of England was subject unto the Kings of France, or that they could command the Kings of England in any matter touching their crown of England: or because the bishop's chancellor can excommunicate a man for adultery, that therefore he can also deprive a man of life and living, 
Mat. 20.  for a greater fault. Moreover did not Christ plainly enough declare what kind of Kingdom he gave to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, and how unkingely kings they should be; when they contended among themselves who should be greatest. The kings of nations (said he) be Lords over those countries, and their princer have power over them, but so it is not in you: doth he not here in plain words take from them all earthly and bodily Empire and power, and that too from the greatest of them; So that the Pope that claimeth to be greatest and chiefest, is also hereby excluded: neither will a shift of humility serve to escape, seeing that to depose Princes is to reign over nations, is to be their Lord, is to have power over them, all which things Christ saith the greatest of his Apostles, & his successors should not have: nor consequently authority to release all subjects of their allegiance the which is a supreme point of Earthly Empire, the which never any mortal man yet had and only belongeth unto the great God, the supreme Lord and sovereign of the whole world; for never yet was there any so mighty a monarch, that had all the world under his Empire, neither then could his authority extend over all nations: but his power determined within the bonds of his own Empire, & could not stretch beyond his own vassals, among whom only he might decree in what cases their signories should be forfeated, and their bondmen be enfranchised of the service of their Lords and not prescribe laws therein unto all other not subject unto him, no more than the Queen of England can enact, that if the king of Spain shall do this and this, that then he shall forfeit his Crown, 
No law of the Church touching temporalties ever allowed in this Realm  or the king of France make an edict that if any Lord in England shall commit such and such faults, that then he shall forfitte all his property over his bondmen, and they to be enfranchised. And therefore because the Princes of this Realm did never acknowledge themselves vassals unto the Pope, nor the See of Rome, nor never agnized him for their Sovereign in temporalities, they did never hear when the Pope's authority was greatest, administer justice and adjudge secular causes here. according to the Pope's decrees, and Canons of the counsels, but always according to the laws customs and statutes of the Realm, and in those causes the Canon law had no authority, and force in this Land. This is so often affirmed by the author of the learned book called the Doctor and student, (who as he was a great lawyer, so was he also a good divine and devout Catholic) that it wear tedious to rehearse them all. In the xliiii. Chapter of thee second book thus he writeth: for the ordinary, no yet the party himself have any authority to bind any inheritance by the authority of the spiritual law, how then can they bind the inheritance of the crown, And again in the same Chapter, and therefore it is somewhat to be marveled that ordinaries will admit such land for a title etc. without knowing how the common law will serve therein, for of mere right all inheritance within this Realm ought to be ordered by the Kings Law. Also in the xxxvi. Chapter of the second book, the Doctor of divinity saith, yet me thinks always that the title of the lapse, in such case is given by the law of the Church, and not by the temporal law, and therefore it forceth but little what the temporal law will in it as me seemeth. Whereunto the author answereth thus under the name of the student of law. In such countries where the Pope hath power to determine the right of temporal things I think it is as thou sayest, but in this realm it is not so. And the right of presentment is a temporal thing; and a temporal inheritance, and therefore I do think it belongeth to the kings law to determine, and also to make laws who shall present after the six month, aswell as before, so that the title of ability, or none ability, be not therefore taken from the ordinaries. And in like wise it is of avoidance of benefices, that is to say that it shall be judged by the kings laws, when a benefice shallbe said void and when not, and not by the law of the Church, and shall the law of the Church determine when the crown is void? As when a parson is made a bishop, or accepteth another benefice without licence or resigneth, or is deprived, in these causes the common law saith, that the benefices be void, And so they should be though the Church had made a law to the contrary. And so if the Pope should have any title in this case to present, it should be by the law of this Realm. And if he should have title to present unto the Crown should it not be by the law of this Realm? And I have not seen ne hard that the laws of this Realm have given any title to the Pope to determine any temporal thing that may be lawfully determined by the King's Court, no● y●● that he may depose the King, and give his kingdom unto any foreigner, but because no man should repute this lawyer for a Lollard and enemy unto the Pope, see what immediately followeth. Doctor. It seemeth by the reason that thou hast made now, that thou preferrest the kings authority in presentments, before the Popes, and that me thinks should not stand with the Law of God, sith the Pope is the vicar general under God. Student, That I have said proveth nor, for the highest preferment in presentments, is to have authority to examine the ability of the person that is presented, for if the presented be able, it sufficeth to the discharge of the ordinary by whomsoever he be presented; & that authority is not denied by the law of the Realm to belong always to the spiritual jurisdiction. Thus seeing the author, of the Doctor and the student (whom some suppose to be Saint Germany) is proved to be no partial man against the Pope, but only a learned Lawyer that setteth down uprightly, to the satisfaction of men's consciences, what right every man hath, and declareth the common opinion of his time when the Pope's power was in the Prime: we will rehearse yet more out of him to the confirmation of you, our Catholic countrymen who do openly profess, that ye will grant her majesty as much, and as great authority, as any of her ancestors before her father had, since the conquest yea or since they embraced the faith of Christ. In the xlvii Chapter of the second book, he saith that although by the Canon Law the Pope ought to present to all benefice● or dignities, the incumbents whereof die at Rome or within two days ●ourney thereof, yet he saith that it holdeth not 〈◊〉 this Realm▪ because by the laws of this realm the King ought according to the ancient right of his crown, to present of all his advowsons that be of his patronage. And in likewise other patrons of benefices of their presentment, and the plea of the right of presentments of benefice is within this Realm belongeth to the King and his Crown. And these titles can not be taken from the king and his subjects but by their assent, and so the law that is made therein to put away that title bindeth not in this realm. Then may I reason of a stronger, that the kings title to the Crown can not be taken away without his consent, and so the Law that is made therein by the Church to put away that title, bindeth not in this Realm. But to return again unto presentments of benefices, who knoweth not the terrible statute of praemunire, made in the Reign of Edward the third, against all such as should provide English benefices or spiritual dignities from Rome, or purchase them from the Pope, and also against all attorneys, and agents in that matter, against the which statute the Pope never spurned but suffered it (saith Saint Germany) and it hath always been used in this Realm with-without resistance, yea and in the statute made against the provisions and translations of bishops by the Pope made in the xvi. year of the reign of Richard the second the vi. Chapter, we find in those words the cause of the making of the statute, lest the Crown of this realm which is immediately subject to God, and to none other in all things touching the royalty of the same Crown, should be submitted to the sea of Rome. We do also read there, that all the Barons, and all the bishop's present, and the deputies of those which were absent, being asked every man severally said that therein they would to their uttermost stand with the King against the Pope so zealous were all good Englishmen in those days of the ancient honour and liberty of their country, and the sovereignty of their King. Moreover Saint germany in the xxxix. Chapter of the second book, entreating how ecclesiastical persons may dispose of their goods, he utterly rejecteth the Canon law therein, and showeth what they may do by the laws of this Realm, and at the length he saith thus, And moreover a parson of a Church vicar & Chauntery priest, or such other; all such goods as they have by reason of the parsonage vicarage or Chauntery, as that they have by reason of their own person, they may lawfully give and bequeath after the common law, And if they dispose part among their parishioners, and part to the building of Churches, or give part to the ordinary, or to poor men, or in any such manner as is appointed by the law of the Church, they offend not therein; unless they think themselves bound thereunto by duty, & authority of the law of the Church, not regarding the King's laws. For if they do so it seemeth they resist the ordinance of God, which hath given power to princes to make laws. But whereas▪ the Pope hath sovereignty in temporal things, as he hath in spiritual things▪ there some say that the goods of priests must in conscience be disposed, as it is contained in the same sum. But it holdeth not in this Realm, for the goods of spiritual men, be temporal in what manner soever they come to them, and must be ordered by the temporal law as the goods of temporal men must be. Thus far Saint Germany; then may I infer: if that the Pope, the counsel, and thee convocation can not make a Law touching the goods of the spirituallty within this Realm, and that those which do dispose of their goods according to such a Canon do sin, although it do agree with the law of this Realm, if they did it as bound by that Canon: shall we think that the Pope, the council, or the convocation can give away the goods, and lands of temporal men within this Realm, yea and the Crown and kingdom, and that they do not sin mortally that do obey any such decrees? And what account is to be made of the Pope's dispensation in temporal causes, the same learned author plainly declareth in the xli. Chapter of the second book where he saith, That although by the Canon law every man may lawfully kill an Assasin (such a fellow as will at every man's request kill any man for money) yet he affirmeth it is altogether unlawful in this land; and that notwithstanding the Pope's dispensation and pardon, he that slayeth an Assasin is a felon, and so ought to be punished as a felon. Moreover in his xliiii. Chapter he doth conctantly hold, that the Canon sums that do determine all scruples of conscience according to the Canon law do rather hurt English men's consciences, then give them light, and that there be many cases in them ruled according to the Canon law that are not to be observed in this Realm, neither in law nor conscience. And in xlii. Chapter that although many sayings in the same sums do agree with the laws of this Realm, yet they are to be observed by the authority of the Laws of this Realm, and not by the authority alleged by them. Finally in the xxix. Chapter of the same book he doth flatly overrule our present case, whereas by the Canon Law an heretic hath ipso facto lost all his goods, and therefore can make no execution, he affirmeth that it holdeth and bindeth not here, for if he do abjure he hath forfeited no goods, but if he be convicted of heresy and delivered to lay men's hands he hath forfeited all his goods, that he hath at that time, that he was delivered unto them; but not his lands, before that he be put to death. To this the Doctor answereth: me thinketh that as it only belongeth unto the Church to determine heresies that so it belongeth unto the Church what punishment he shall have for his heresy, except, death which they can not be judges in; but if the Church decree that therefore he shall forfeit his goods, me thinks that they be forfeited by that decree; unto this objection he thus answered under the name of student. Nay verily for they be temporal things, and belong to the judgement of the king's court; And I think that the ordinary might have set no fine upon one impeached of heresy, until it was ordained by the statute of Henry the fourth, that he may set a fine if he see cause, and that the king shall have that fine. If this were the universal belief of all good Englishmen in the time, when the Pope's authority most flourished here, and before this controversy arose; that neither the Pope, nor counsel, nor Church, hath authority to ordain any temporal punishment for heresy, can he be accounted a true Englishman that doth hold that the Pope can deprive her majesty of her crown and dignity for a pretence of heresy? 
Of the counsel of Laterane.  or that the Canon made in the counsel held at Laterane doth bind us here in England? But because we understand that the greatest scruple in conscience of our Catholics Roman is grounded upon this Canon: we will make a particular treatise thereof, and to uncomber and discharge their consciences show first that it is no determination of faith that the Pope may depose princes, and secondly that it doth not bind in this realm, not only because as I have proved before, the Church can make no decree of temporalities, but also because by the very Canon Law, it neither is, nor ever was in force within this realm; and finally neither orderly executed according to the order of the Canon. And first because I shall have occasion to examine every word of one member thereof I will set it down verbatim word for word. Ca 33● Si ver● dominus temporalis requisitus & admonitus ab ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate, per Metropolitanum & comprovinciales episcapoes, excommunicationis vinculo innodetur, etsi satisfacer● contempserit intra annum, significetur hoc summo pontifici Romano. ut extunc ipse, vasallos ab eius fidelitate denuntiet absolutos & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui came exterminatis haereticis sine contradictone possideant, & in fidei puritate conseruent: ita quod bona huiusmodi damnatorum, si laici fuerint, confiscentur, si vero clereci applicentur ecclesijs a quibus stipendia per ceperint. Which may thus be englished, If the temporal Lord being requested and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his land from this heretical filthiness, let him be inknotted with the band of excommunication, by the Metropolitan and Bishops of that province: And if he shall contemn to satisfy within one year, let this be signified unto the Bishop of Rome, that he may denounce his vassals acquitted of his fealty, and expone or set forth, his land unto the Catholics for them to take, who, the heretics being driven out may possess it without contradiction, and keep it in the purity of the faith: so that the goods of such condemned men, if they be lay men, be escheated to the prince, or if they be clerks, be applied to the Churches of whom they received stipends; Hear ye see is no definitive sentence of faith set down, but only an order appointed to be used for the rooting out of heresies, so that no weak Catholic conscience need to make scruple, that the Pope can depose princes because the counsel doth say let it signified to the Bishop of Rome, that he may denounce his subjects loosed of their obedience, etc. For the counsel goeth no more about to decide whether Bishops of Rome may depose princes, then whether Bishops may excommunicate them, whereof no man in those days doubted, but content themselves with the used and practised authority of them both, for long before this time had the Popes used to depose princes, as Pope Gregory the seventh, the Emperor Henry the fourth, and Boleslaw king of Poland. And Innocentius tertius the present Pope that then held the counsel, had himself before that time deposed the emperors Philip and Otho, john the king of England, and Raymond the Earl of Tolouse. So that seeing no man did then move any doubt, whether Popes might lawfully do it or no, neither did the counsel then go about to determine it, but wholly omitting the matter, doth only set down an order to be used for the destroying of heresies. But otherwise if ye should always infer, that for decreed for faith and lawful, which general counsels do many times as it were secretly receive and not reprove; ye will never be able to defend them from error in faith, and that which is equivalent, from being one, contradictory unto another; For at the second counsel of Nice it is not refuted, 
Cap. 32.  but rather it seemeth by the way to be allowed, that Angels have material bodies. So likewise this counsel may after a sort seem to allow, that patrons may lawfully in good conscience detain, a great part of the tithes and profits of their Churches, so that they do leave the vicar a sufficient living: because that this counsel finding fault with this misorder, that patrons and certain other persons do take the profits of the parish Churches, doth charge them with no more: then the which what can be more against good conscience and equity, than he to live by the altar that serveth not at the altar; and namely among Catholics Roman that do hold, that tithes are by the law of God due only to priests, and with what conscience then can any lay man enjoy them. Likewise in the same counsel there is a Canon, that he that hath a parish Church shall not serve the cure by his vicar, but by himself unless perhaps the Church be annexed to a prebend or dignity, in the which case we do grant that he which hath a prebend or dignity, seeing it must be, that he do serve in the greater Church, that he do endeavour to have in that parish Church a meet and perpetual vicar canonically instituted, etc. Hear ye see that this counsel doth not think that residence upon benefices with charge of souls is commanded by God his law; which is contrary to the counsel at Treent in the 23 Section in the first chapter of reformation. Yea Dominicus Soto in his book de●ertitudine gratiae against Catherine, doth flatly affirm, that all the Bishops & learned men that were at that counsel did so wholly agree that residence was required by the law of God, that there was not one man that doubted thereof but only Catherine. Moreover this counsel thinks it meeter that a man be resident in the Cathedral Church, then in his parish Church, yea it seemeth to say of duty it must be so, a thing very absurd in Dominicke Soto his judgement; who sharply reproveth the Cardinals that have bishoprics, and be not resident on them, but abide and continue at Rome; and thinketh▪ it no reason that they allege that they ought to make their abode at Rome, because they be Cardinals, and as it were assistants unto the Pope, for saith he, residences upon bishoprics are commanded by God, but Cardinals to be attendant on the Pope is but a constitution of man, the which must needs give place to the ordinances more ancient and greater. And bitterly doth he inveigh against the common abuse: that whereas by the Canons of the Church no Cardinal may be a Bishop, because both offices require residence, which one man can not perform, the Cardinals to delude the force of this Canon, are never instituted Bishops but have bishoprics given them in perpetual commenda, whereby it is come to pass that the ordinance of commenda's which was first instituted for the benefit of the Church by suffering one to have the government of it, for a time until a meet man might be found for it; is now used to the destruction of the Church, and the unlawful enriching of the covetous & ambitious. Yea the counsel of Trent in the 25. Section. Chap. 18. doth think this Canon of the counsel of Lateran, so unreasonable and unjust, for to impropriate benefices with charge of souls; and to ordain in them a perpetual vicar, to serve the cure; that they do forbid the like to be done ever hereafter notwithstanding any grace or grant: wisely weighing the difference between an institution of God, and an ordinance of man, the serving of God in a public charge & in private person, & finally how much greater good or hurt may ensue by the continual presence, or the absence of the person in, or from his parish, then by his lying at, or from the Cathedral Church. So that to salve all this gear, both ye and we are forced to say, that the counsels went not about to determine what ought to be believed in those points, and so also must ye do in this controversy of deposing princes, and not to account it for a definition of faith, but a politic constitution; Of which kind of Canon's Saint Augustine saith, 
De Baptis-Donat: lib. 2. cap 3.  who knoweth not, that former general counsels are often amended by the latter▪ when by some experiment of things, that is opened which had been shut, and that known that lay hidden, without any type of sacrilegious pride, without any swollen neck of vain glory, without any contention of spiteful envy, with holy humility, Catholic peace, and Christian charity. Moreover the famous Cardinal Taietan● that doth hold and maintain that the Pope cannot err in the definition of faith, yet doth affirm in his commentaries upon Matthew that he may err in judgement, whether a thing be lawful or no: And therefore he doth not accept the de●rees of the Pope, in his controversy of divotee for definitive of faith, but for judicial: And in judgements the Pope's themselves (saith he) do confess that they have erred; and so then may also a general counsel err in judgements by your own rules, if perhaps any judgement be to be found of the counsel of the Lateran, against Raimond the Earl of Tolouse, for not purging his country of the Albigenses.  

Canons of counsels bind not but where they are received.  Now this first scruple being taken away, let us descend unto our next article and conclusion, that the Canon doth not bind us in this realm; who is so ignorant that knoweth not that all decrees and Canons of general counsels, are not observed and kept in every country, neither do thy bind the breakers of them in conscience; As for example, there was a decree made by the counsel at Nice, that deacons shall not sit above priests: but yet we do see at Rome, the Deacon Cardinals, do sit above Bishops that be no Cardinals. Likewise in Sexto Constantinapolitano in Trullo, there is forbidden kneeling in prayer on the Sundays, and so likewise all the time between Easter and Whitsuntide, And also that no man shall fast the Saturnedays in Lent: but the quite contrary of both Canons, was most usual in this land, and thought most devout when the Pope was in his highest prime here. Moreover it is the common opinion of all the canonists, that the decrees and Canons reformative do not else where bind, but where they have been received, and therefore our seminary priests do hold, that the Catholics Roman of this Realm, nor yet those in France, be not bound to observe the Canons of the late counsel at Trent, because they have been publicly received in neither of the kingdoms. This then being so, if I can prove that this Canon of deposing of princes was never received in this Realm, then have I convinced that it doth bind no man of this Realm in conscience. And this will I first prove by circumstance of the time, and secondly, because divers other 〈◊〉 for down in the same counsel were never observed 〈◊〉, as for this Canon, 
The Canon never received, proved by circumstance of time.  it never came in practice hear ●ntill King Henry the eight. First it is certain that the counsel at Laterane was held in Anno Domini. 1215. and in the seventh year of the reign of King Io●n, and in the time of the bloody broils of the Barons, against the king, it can not be denied but that the king had three Ambassadors there, and likely enough it is, that they subscribed and consented as the rest of the Ambassadors did, for their master sought all the means he could to please the Pope; that he might have his help against the Barons; and so indeed he stood his fast friend, and at the counsel, accursed the Barons, suspended the Archbishop of Canterbury Stephan Lang●●●, for taking part with them, and for the same quarrel would not allow his brother Simon Elected Archbishop of york, so that there is no doubt but the greatest part of the realm, were as ready to displease the Pope, as their prince was to please him, for the chiefest cause that moved the king to send Ambassadors unto the counsel was, saith Mathews of Paris, to procure the Pope's curse against the Barons. These woeful wars continued to the death of king john, so that no parliament was, or could be held, whereby this Canon could be received: For if Sir Thomas More in his debellation doth truly say, that king john could not make his kingdom tributary to the Pope, without the consent of the parliament, much less could he give the Pope authority to give the realm away, God knows to whom it should please him, or that Christian that was able to win it by fine force, for according to the rule of the Canon Law, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus debet approbari, that which toucheth all men ought to be allowed and approved and confirmed by all, wherefore the Lord chief justice in the first year of the reign of Henry the seventh, as we do read in the reports of the same year Termino Hillarii. Chap. 10. affirmed, that all the Barons unto the Pope that after a sort commanded Edward the first to surcease from warring on the Scots that held of him: That although the king would give away the right he had to Scotland's, yet for all that it should not be so, because that he that is king of England is always chief Lord of Scotland. And if the king of this Realm, cannot of himself dispose of a thing annexed and incorporated to the crown of this kingdom: will any wise man be of opinion that king john could dispose of the crown of England of himself, without the assent and consent of the states, and ordain forfeitures thereof to foreigners and strangers. And although I can easily be persuaded that the subjects for the extreme hatred that they bore unto their present prince, 
The iniquity of the Canon  would lightly be won to accept of causes to be discharged of their alleageanc to their king: yet can I hardly be induced to believe, that they could suffer themselves, their wives and children, lands and livings, goods and country to be exposed to the sack and spoil of all their neighbours, yea of all Christendom if they should unhappily hap to have a wicked king. And also well might they satisfy the will and intent of the counsel, without any such pernicious peril of there whole state, and also retain still their ancient honour and liberty, if they themselves did make choice of the Physician that should purge them, (if that the law of God had not utterly forbidden them to rebel from their prince, were he never so wicked) and not foolishly bind themselves to take a purgation of they know not whom, & perhaps, unhappily of such a one, 〈◊〉 ●●te likely to purge them of ill humours so extremely, that he would destroy the habit of their body, And hereof ●o said an example they needed not to seek far: For as the very same instant they had a very plain proof thereof in France, where the earl of Tolowse was deprived of his earldom, because he would not purge his dominions of the Albigenses; and the earldom given by the Pope unto Simon the Earl of Monssort; For that I may omit how bloodily Monssort executed the Pope's mandate being general of the Croysy against the Albigenses in sacking the Cities, murdering the men and women, how he did also under that pretence assault & sack cities, that were not one whit infected with that sect, and slew in one battle twenty thousand of the people, and their Allies; After he was created earl by the Pope and counsel, and invested therein by the French King, and all the whole country had embraced him for their prince, he cruelly commanded the citizens of Carcassane Towlose & Narbon to dismantell their walls & to fill up their ditches. This to do (saith Paulus Aemilius mine author also in the rest of this history) they thought to be a wretched ●e pitiful thing, yet they executed his commandment cursing the head of Simon, they begin with their own hands to make their country naked of her walls, they themselves making themselves subject unto all injury, Nether did that seem to be the greatest of their evils, for Simon, both because his purse was well emptied through the charges of the wars, and also then he might thoroughly ●ame them being afflicted with miseries, and manyfould mischiefs, sendeth about collectors and coactors to levy a mighty mass of money of the country: It is strange that nature hath so ordained that every man's private damages do move him more than the public sorrow, neither can their be any sharper weapon found then that of money. They which at his commandment overthrew their country, could not endure the loss of their purse. So that the war that was said & pennached to have been taken in hand, & kept for gods cause; and might have been ended by sparing of them that had yelde●, and by dissembling of things past, was made now more hard to be ended through unmerciful dealing. Doors were broken, open distresses were taken, sighing, shrieking, sorrowing, weeping & wailing of men & women, were hard in every house. At length sorrow being turned into anger, the old Earl being then in hope of alteration, had returned out of Spain whither he fled after his discomfiture in battle, was received of the City of Tolouse and other Cities there abouts, the bishops whom Simon had restored were driven out again, because the multitude thought them to favour him. Then Aemilius seemeth to exclaim against the wickedness of this Canon, in giving principalities to strangers, and showeth how hurtful it is to god's cause, for the advancement whereof it is supposed to be made thus saying, Nihil in sacris bellis perinde obfuit, atque mos iam exortus, ut honesta proscriptione suas quisque respiciat res; in ore omnium sanctum piumque versetur, consilio; conatu, animo secus afficiantur. S● de religione tantum agaetur, si oblivio noxae sanciatur, si sanatis mentibus fortunis hominum abstineatur, omnes idem sentiant, nunc de mortalium iure, de comitatures est, ea controversia tollatur, nulla erit armorum causa etc. Nothing hath done so much hurt in the sacred wars as a custom that is now come up, that every man doth by honest prescription regard and respect his own, that in all their mouths is heard, holy and godly; but in drift, doings, and in heart, they are otherwise affected. If the matter be only for religion, if it be decreed that the fault be forgotten and forgiven, if when men's hearts are healed their goods be abstained from, let them be all of one mind; Now the matter in hand is about the right of men, and about an Earldom, let that controversy be taken away, and there is no cause of wars. Ramond requesteth his ancient patrimony, Simon holdeth fast that, which he hath gotten by Arms, the gift of the counsel, the benefit of the king of France. These men are ●●●de●ill only of there own; But the Pope, because the matter had once before been adjudged, doth think it to stand with his constancy, and with religion, to have, the ordinances of their fathers to abide stable, and his own decrees inviolable etc. Thus the wise Barons saw, and we also may, that the wars in the Earldom of Towlose had ceased when the cause ceased, that is, when the Albigenses were expelled, and the Catholics Roman restored, if it had not been for this decree of the Counsel that had adjudged the Earldom unto Monssort, which now, seeing they were not contented with the reformation of the Earldom, and the Earl, continued many years after, almost to the utter destruction of the Country, and also the death of Simon, who eight years after was in that quarrel, slain at the siege of Tolowse. But there sons Almericke and Ramond continued their father's contention. When Almericke finding himself to weak, did three years after make over his right unto Lewis the eight, the French King; for to be created Constable of France, Lewes wan Aninion by assault, yet died before he could accomplish his conquest: and his widow, and regent of his young son followed the quarrel, and at length ended it, by composition, that Alphonse her younger son should marry with the sole daughter and heir of the Earl and enjoy his earldom after his disease: this happened, Anno 1235, nineteen years after that all wars for religion had ended. So great a good had the first execution of this Canon wrought, I have dwelled the longer in the narration of this history, for to show the inconvenience of this Canon, and also to set before the eyes of my Catholic Countrymen, what curtsy they and theirs are like to find at the hands of a foreign Catholic. Prince, if any should unhappily (which God of his unmeasurable mercy forbid, and my hand shaketh to write) through their wicked and pernicious treason obtain the conquest of this kingdom. But the english nobility that lived at the counsel at Latarane could not forget the wretched wrack and waist that a conquest bringeth, and the slavery, misery, and the extremity and cursed calamities, that the accepting of a foreign prince inferreth and enforceth, who then kept woeful wars, received from their ancestors by many descents, for their ancient laws and liberties, of whom they had been cruelly spoiled by the conqerour & his successors, and also delivered them unto their posterities almost to the destruction of the blood Royal, well near to the utter ruin of their own houses, and the lamentable shipwreck of their dear country. Yea and what regard the nobility and people of this Land had then of any decree and Canon made by the Pope touching any temporal matter, it doth plainly appear by Matthew of Paris who writeth that when the Pope had sent Bulls of discharge of the kings oath, and grant of their ancient laws and liberties, and also excommunication against the Barons, and their adherents that did attempt to force King john to the performance of them, The Barons would not obey them, but all men generally, and as it were with one mouth said, that the Bulls were of no moment because the ordering of lay matters did not appertain unto the Pope. For that only the power to dispose of Church matters was given by our Lord unto Peter and his successors. What means the insatiable covetousness of the Romans' to stretch out itself unto us? what have Apostolic bishops to do with wars? See they will be the successors of Constantine and not of Peter etc. And in this mind they continued in the reign of king Edward the first, when the Parliament assembled at Lincoln thus wrote (as we read in Thomas of Walsingham & flores historiarum) unto Bonifacius the viii. who among other things in his letters to the king, had requested, that if the King had any right in the kingdoms of Scotland, or any part thereof, that he would send his proctor's and learned counsel unto him, and there the matter should speedily with justice be adjudged & decided. Neither that the kings of England had, by reason of the pre-eminence of their state regal, dignity and custom at all times inviolably observed, ever answered, or aught to answer before any judge ecclesiastical or secular about his rights in the aforesaid kingdom of Scotland, or other his temporalities: wherefore we having held a diligent consultation & deliberation upon the contents of your abovesaid letters, it was the common concordious, & one minded consent of us all, & of everyone of us, & shallbe for ever hereafter unaltered, that our foresaid Lord the King do not about the rights of the kingdom of Scotland, or other his temporalities in any wise, answer judicially before you, nor come under judgement in any sort, or bring his rights aforesaid in doubt or question, nor therefore send proctors or messengers unto your presence, seeing the premises do tend manifestly to the disinheriting of the right of the Crown of the kingdom of England, and the kingly dignity, & the notorious subversion of the state of the same kingdom; & also to the prejudice of our father's liberty, costoms, & laws, to the observation and defending of whom, we are bound by the duty of oath taken, & the which we will maintain in all that we can, and will with the help of God defend with all our strength: Neither also do we permit, or in any sort will suffer, as neither we can, nor aught, that our foresaid Lord & king, (yea if he would) do, or in any cause attempt, the premises so unwonted, undue, prejudicial, and at other times so unheard of etc. And now I pray you will any indifferent man believe, that our countrymen in those days did think, that the Pope had authority to dispose their Kings, or knew or heard, that their fathers and ancestors had given the Pope power to expose the kingdom of their country, for a common pray for all Christians and Catholics; But now having proved that this Canon cannot bind us now, unless our ancestors had received by consent of Parliament, & also have showed that it neither was, nor could be done; let us fall to our second proof that the Canons of this Counsel at least in temporal cases, were never received in this Realm. In this counsel there was a Canon made under pain of excommunication, that the Clergy should not be forced to pay any contribution to secular princes, neither should they willingly of their own accord pay any, without licence first obtained of th● Pope: Now that this Canon was never in force here, it doth plainly appear by the subsidies paid by the Clergy unto the son of King john, 
Chap. 24.  Henry the third, in the ix. the xvi the xxi. the xxix. the xxxvii. the xliiii. the xlii. years of his reign, never once asked the Pope's consent, but contrariwise in the xxxvi. years of his reign the king having the pope's mandate from the Counsel of Lions, 
See Holin●hed.  to pay him three tenths because he was crossed for the holy land, they utterly refused to pay him penny. The Clergy did also without contradiction pay unto his son and successor Edward the first in the eight year of his reaigne three tenths, and in the eleventh year the twentieth part of all their goods, but afterward at the Parliament held at Saint Edmondesbury, Robert the archbishop of Canterbury and some of the Clergy refused to pay, not claming to be exempted by this Canon but by another decree made lately that very year by Pope Bonifacius the eight, but then the King put the Clergy out of his protection; and thus forced them to yield, and so they have continued payment quietly ever since that time; An other Canon we have in the same counsel, Chap. 4●. that no prescription shall be good during the whole time whereof the possessor did not verily believe that the thing was his own in truth, But that the law of this land did never make any distinction of possession bona or malae fidei, whether the possessor did think it to be his own or not at all, our Lawyers do know and acknowledge. And also the statutes of limitation made in the parliaments held at Marton and Westminster in the three and twenty years of the reigns of Henry the third and Edward the first do plainly prove. Also a third Canon there is, a branch of this of the desposition of Princes, that the goods of Clerks condemned for heretics shall be forfeited unto the Churches where they served.  
This constitution not to be observed, the author of the book called the Doctor and the Student doth at large prove in the xxix. Chapter of his second book, And also it doth plainly appear by the statute made in the second year of Henry the first Chapt. 7. where we find that the goods of Heretics of what estate, condition and degree soever they be, are escheated to the King▪ And also all their lands that hold immediately of him, or of their ordinaries or their commissaries: but the lands of all other that hold in chief of other Lords, the king to have them a year and a day with their wastes, and afterward to return unto the Lord of the sea. And seeing that in three small matters that touched not the state, the Counsel was not, nor is received, can any wise man believe that the Counsel was received in a Canon that touched the ruin of the whole country and kingdom, and namely, seeing it hath been plainly proved, that a part of the very self same Canon was never allowed.  
Now finally to conclude: neither was the sentence of deprivation canonically pronounced against her Majesty, according to thee decree of the Counsel, 
The Canon not orderly executed.  for whereas she should first have been admonished by the Church, and then excommunicated by the Metropolitan, and his comprovincial bishops; and than if she had contemned to satisfy within one year, to be deprived, etc. It is manifest that she was not excommunicated by the Metropolitan, and the bishops of his province, neither I do think admonished by the Church, but even at the very first chop deposed by the Pope. Therefore seeing that neither Pope, nor general counsel have authority to depose Princes, or release subjects of their allegiance, neither was the Canon of the Counsel of Lateran for deposing of Princes ever received in this land, nor any other Canons of Counsels that touched temporalities, neither yet that Canon orderly executed ●-against her Majesty. What good Christian English man can think, that he was by that Bull of Pius Quin●●● discharged of his obedience, and allegiance that he oweth unto her Majesty: And can absurdly believe, that all those that shall die in that quarrel shall undoubtedly be damned in hell fire, with all miscreants and rebels.  
FINIS.