3. To the third conclusion. Many writynges or chartes inuented by men, as touchyng perpetuall hereditage ciuile, be vnpossible.

? The veritie of this conclusion is incident. For we must not canonize all maner of Chartes, what soeuer, as Catholicke, or vniuersall: for th? it were not lawful by any meanes to take away or sequester thynges geuen by charte or charter when any doth vniustly occupy the same. And so, if that stand confirmed & ratified by the fayth of the Church, great occasion therby should be ministred to men so chartered, to trust to their temporall chartes, and so might grow thereby much libertie and licence to sinne. For like as by what supposition euery truth is necessary: so by the same suppositiō, euery fals thyng is possible, as it is playne by þ^e testimonie of Scripture, and of holy Doctours speakyng of necessitie of thynges to come.

4. Euery mā being in grace iustifying finally, hath not onely right vnto the thyng, but also for his tyme hath right in deede, ouer all the good thynges of God.

? The veritie hereof is euidēt, by holy Scripture Math. 24. Where veritie promiseth to euery man entring into his ioy: verely (sayth he) I tell you, he shall set and place him ouer all the goodes he hath.MarginaliaNote here he speaketh onely of the right of thinges in the country to come: and not in thys exile. For the right and title i to the communiō of Saintes in their countrey (he meaneth in the kyngdome of heauen) Fundatur obiectiue super vniuersitatem bonorum Dei: That is: hath his relation, as vnto his obiect to all the goodes and possession of God.

5. A man can but onely ministratoriously, geue any temporall dominion or gift perpetuall, as well to his owne naturall sonne, as to his sonne by imitation.

? It is euident. For euery mā ought to recognise himselfe in all his workes and doynges, as an humble seruaunt, and minister of God. As the wordes of Scripture doth teach vs. Let a man so esteme of vs as the ministers of Christ. Yea so Christ himselfe did teach his chief Apostles to minister, but in the countrey the Saints shall geue vnto their felow brethren the dominion of their goodes vt patet de suis corporibus & bonis eis inferioribus in natura accordyng to the wordes of Luke. 6. They shall geue you and put into your bosomes a good measure and perfect, well filled & heaped vp, and runnyng ouer.

6. If God be, temporall Lordes may lawfully and meritoriously take away the goodes of fortune from the Churche when they do offend, habitualiter?

? This conclusion is correlatiue with the first article of our fayth: I beleue in God the father almighty &c. Where I vnderstand this word (may) in this conclusion after the maner of autentique Scripture, which saith and graūteth: that God is able, of these stones to rayse vp children to Abraham. for otherwise all Christian Princes were heretiques. For this conclusiō, thus standeth the reason: If God be, he is omnipotent: and if he be almighty, he is able to commaunde the Lordes temporall so to do: and if he may so cōmaunde, then may they lawfully so take away such Gods &c. And so by the vertue of the same principle, Christian princes haue practised the sayd sentence vpon the Church men heretofore, as did William Rufus &c. But God forbyd that any should beleue hereby my intentiō to haue bene, that secular Lordes may lawfully take away what goodes soeuer and by what meanes soeuer, by their own naked authoritie at their pleasure: but onely by þ^e authoritie of the church may so do, in cases and forme limited by the law.

7. We know that it is not possible that the vicare of Christ is able by his pure Bulles. &c.

? Thys is manifest by the Catholique fayth, for asmuch as the Church doth fully beleue that the ablyng of any mā, ought first to procede and come of God: wherfore, no man being Christ his Vicar, hath any power in this matter, but onely as Vicar in þ^e name of the Lord so farre forth as he is enabled of the Lord, to notifie vnto the Church whom God hath enabled. Wherfore if any man do any thyng not as vicar in the name of the Lord, whom he ought to forethinke to be his author and head: It is a presumption of Lucifer, for somuch as Christ by his Apostle sayth 1. Cor. 3. all our habilitie or sufficiency cōmeth of God. And so consequently, it commeth not purely by the ministery of his Vicarship, that he is enhabled, but the hablenes or vnablenes of him beyng the Vicar of Christ, commeth to him an other way from aboue.

8. A man can not be excommuicate to his hurt or vndoyng, except he be excommunicate first and principally, of himselfe.

? It is euident, forasmuch as all such excommunication ought to procede & begyn originally of his owne sinne which is damnified: Wherupon Augustine sayth De verbis Domini, Sermone 51. Do not thou conculcate thy selfe, and man ouercōmeth thee not. And moreouer the fayth of the church doth teach, quod nulla ei nocebit aduersitas, si nulla dominetur iniquitas, that is to say, No aduersitie shall hurt, if no iniquitie haue the vpper hand. And yet notwithstandyng euery excommunication for many causes is also to be feared, although that the excommunication of the Church to the humble man beyng excommunicated, be not damnable but wholesome.

9. No man ought but in Gods cause alone to excommunicate, suspende, &c.

? It is cleare, for asmuch as euery iust cause is the cause of God, whose respect ought chiefly to be wayed and pondered. Yea the loue of the person excommunicate ought to surmount the zeale of reuengement, and the desire of all temporall goodes whatsoeuer, for otherwise he that doth excōmunicate, doth dānifie himselfe. To this. ix. conclusion notwithstandyng it is congruent, that a Prelate may excommunicate in the cause also of man, so that his principall respect in so doing be had to the iniury done to his God, as appeareth 13. quæst. 4. cap. Inter querelas.

10. No curse or excommunication can bynde simply, but in case it be geuē out agaynst the aduersary of Christes law.

? And it appeareth thus, because that God doth bynde simply euery one that is bound, who cannot excommunicate but onely for transgression of his law. Wherunto it is consonant notwithstāding, that the censure of the church doth not bynde simply, but secondarely in that case and respect, as it is denounced agaynst the aduersary of the members of the Church.

11. There is no example of Christ which geueth power to his disciples to excommunicate any subiect (especially for denying of any temporalties) but contrary.

? Which is thus declared by the fayth, wherby we beleue that God is to be beloued aboue all thinges, and our neighbour and enemy are to be beloued aboue all temporall goods of this worlde necessaryly, for the law of God cannot be contrary vnto it selfe.

12. The disciples of Christ haue no power by any ciuill coaction, to exact temporall thinges by their censures.

? This appeareth by the fayth of the Scripture. Luke. 23. wher Christ dyd forbyd his Apostles ciuilly to raigne or to beare any Lordshyp. The kyngs (sayth he) of the Gētiles beare rule ouer them, but you not so. And after this sense it is expoūded of S. Bernard, of S. Chrisostome, and other holy men: which conclusion notwithstanding, yet may they exact temporall thynges by ecclesiasticall censures incidently, if case be that it appertaine to the reuengement of their God.

13. It is not possible by the absolute power of God, that if the pope or any other Christian do pretend to bynd or lose at their pleasure, by what meanes soeuer, that thereby he doth so bynde and lose.

? The contrary of this conclusion will destroy the whole catholicke fayth, importyng no lesse but him to be a blasphemer which so vsurpeth such absolute power of the Lord. And yet by this conclusion I entend not to derogate frō the power of the Pope or of any other Prelate of the Church, but that he may by the vertue of the head so bynde and lose. But do vnderstand the conditionall of this negatiue (to be impossible) after this sense: that it cannot be that the Pope or any other Prelate of the Church can pretend by himselfe to bynde or lose (how and after what maner he lyst himself) except in such sort, that he do in deede so bynde and lose before God as he doth pretend to do.

14. We ought to beleue, that the Vicare of Christ doth at such times onely binde and loose, when as he worketh conformably by the law, and ordinaunce of Christ. &c.

? The reasō therof is this, because otherwise it is vnlawfull for him so to do, except he should do it in the vertue of that law, and so cōsequently, vnlesse it be conformable to the law and ordinaunce of Christ.

15. To this cōclusion, this ought vniuersally to be beleued, that euery Priest rightly and duely ordered, hath power accordyng to his vocation, &c.

? The reason hereof is this, because that þ^e order of priesthode in his owne nature and substaunce, receaueth no such degrees, either of more, or of lesse. And yet notwithstanding, the power of inferiour Priests, in these dayes be vpon due consideration restrained, and some tymes agayne in tyme of extreme necessitie released. And thus accordyng to the Doctours, a Prelat hath a double power, to witte, the power of order, & the power of iurisdictiō or regimnt. And according to this second power, the Prelates are in an hygher maiestie, and regiment.

16. It is lawfull for princes and kyngs (in cases by the law limited) to withdraw temporal commodities, from Church