whence was that of his who was both King and Prophet against thee only haue I sinned And afterward For where as according to the Apostle it is a fearefull thing for euery man to fall into the hands of the liuing God yet for Kings who haue none aboue them besides him to feare it will be so much the more fearefull that they may offend more freely then others I can call in more and that very many to testifie the truth of this matter but what needs any more In the mouth of two or three witnesses let euery word stand If the assertors of the contrary opinion can bring forth so many testimonies of ancient fathers or indeed but any one wherein it is expresly written that the Church or the supreme head thereof the Bishop hath temporall power ouer secular Kings and Princes and that he may coerce and chastise them by temporall punishments any way either directly or indirectly or inflict any penalty either to the whole Kingdome or any part of it I shall be content that the whole controuersie shall be iudged on their side without any appeale from thence For indeed I desire nothing so much as that a certaine meane might be found by which the iudgement of the contrary side might be clearely confirmed But while I expect that in vaine in the meane time the truth caries me away with her conquered and bound into the contrary part Therefore I demand this now of the aduersaries whether it be likely that those ancient and holy fathers who haue written of the great power and immunity of Kings and Emperors were so negligent that of very carelesnesse they did not put in mind the Princes of their time of this temporall power of the Pope or that they left not this remembrance if they made any consigned vnder their hands in writing To the end that Princes should feare not only the secret iudgements of God but also the temporall iurisdiction of the Church and Pope by which they might be throwen downe from their seates so oft as the Church or the Pope who is the head thereof shall thinke it fit in regard of religion and the common weale certainly to be silent and to haue concealed so great a matter if it was true was to abuse Kings and Princes whom they had perswaded both by writings and preachings that they could be iudged by God only in temporall matters Or shall we imagine that they were so vnskilfull and ignorant of the authority of the Church that they knew not that it was indued with such a power Or in a word that they were so fearefull and narrow minded that they durst not tell the Princes that which they knew If none of these things can be imputed and charged on those ancient fathers why I pray you should we now embrace any new power which is grounded vpon no certaine either authority or reason but in these last ages deuised and thrust vpon the people by certaine fellowes who are seruâ—ly and basely addicted to the Pope and so lay a new and strange yoke vpon Princes CHAP. IX I Haue already plainly shewed that the last part of the second reason of the Aduersaries is most false which is That the Church therefore tolerated Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other heretike Princes because she could not chastise them without the hurt of the people Now will I prooue that the latter part is euen as false to wit that Henrie the IV. Emperour and other Princes ouer whom the later Popes haue arrogated to themselues temporall power might be coerced and chastised by the Church without hurt of the people Which before that I take in hand I doe hartely request not onely the friendly Reader but euen the Aduersaries themselues that the question being discussed they would weigh with themselues and iudge truly and sincerely whether it were not more easie for the Church to punish those first Princes by the aforesaid waies and meanes then to reduce into order the said Henry the IV by Rodolphus the Sweuian or Philip the Faire by Albert of Austria Of whom the one scorned and repressed the arrogancie of the Pope the other after diuers battles fought with diuers successe at the length in the last battle defeated his Competitor and Enemie whom the Pope had set vpon him and as for the Pope of whom he was excommunicate he banished him out of Rome and plagued him with perpetuall banishment With how great hurt and spoile to the people the Pope laboured to execute that temporall power vpon Heâ—ry the XII Oâ—to Frisingen witnesseth whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for bloud and for learning and for integritie of lifeâ— who write of the Excommunication and deposition of the said Henrie done by Gregorie the VII in this manner I read and read againe the actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and finde no where that before this man any of them was excommunicate or depriued of his Kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse any man thinke it is to be accompted for an Excommunication that Philip was for a small time placed amongst the Pâ—nitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome and that Theodosius was â—equestredor suspended from entring into the Church by blessed Ambrose for his bloudie murder In which place it is to be obserued that Otto doth plainly professe that he findes in former ages no example of priuation of a Kingdome although hee propounded these two instances touching Excommunication if not true at least hauing a shew of true ones And afterward within a few lines he writeth thus But what great mischiefes how many warres and hazardes of warres followed thereof how oft miserable Rome was besieged taken spotled because Pope was set vp againe Pope and King aboue King it is a paine to remember To be short the rage of this storme did so hurry and wrap within it so many mischiefes so many schismes so many dangers both of soules and bodies that the same euen of it selfe by reason both of the crueltie of the persecution and the continuance thereof were sufficient to prooue the vnhappinesse of mans miserie Vpon which occasion that time is by an Ecclesiasticall writer compared to the thicke darknesse of Egypt For the foresaid Bishop Gregory is banished the cuie by the King and Gibert Bishop of Rauenna is thrust into his place Further Gregorie remaining at Salernum the time of his death approching is reported to haue said I haue loued iustice and hate â— iniquitie therefore I die in banishment Therefore because the kingdome being cut off by the Church was grieuously 〈◊〉 in her Prince the Church also bereaued of so great a Pastor who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeale and authoritie conceaued no small griefe Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people They that write that the Bishop of Rome whom they meane in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperour because hee could chastise him without
twentie yeeres and rent the Church asunder with a continuall schisme may be an argument to vs that that Decree was not made by a diuine inspiration but by an humane passion nor that it proceeded from an ordinarie Iurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolike but either from an extraordinarie ambition or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeale of him that held the Sea For it is not likely that God who is the Author of Iustice and protector of the Church and who hath made the first executions of the spirituall power of the Church exceeding fearefull by present miracles and horrible effects would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinarie assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authoritie and power of his Church especially seeing he was with so many praiers inuocated by the Bishop for his helpe and the Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication in these wordes Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles and by your authoritie interpoâ—ed confirme that which I haue said that all men may now at the last understand if you can binde and loose in heauen that you are also as well able it earth to take away and giue Empires Kingdomes Principalities and whatsoeuer else mortall men may haue Let Kings now learne by this Kings example and all the Princes of the world what you are able to doe in heauen and how much you are in fauour with God and heereafter let them be afraid to contemne the commandements of holy Church But execute with speed vpon Henrie that all men may vnderstand that this Child of iniquitie falleth out of his Kingdome not by chance but by your care Yet this I would intreat at your handes that he being led by repentance may at your request obtaine fauour of the Lord in the day of iudgement These and such like praiers being powred out to God and the Princes of the Apostles and Curses and Imprecations in solemne maner cast vpon Henrie who would not thinke that God who by his Apostles preserues his Church with a continuall protection would not easily suffer himselfe to be intreated and would not presently heare this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authoritie of the Church to be made manifest if any such authoritie had belonged to the Church Wheras notwithstanding cleane contrarie euery thing fell out crosse and vnhappie against the Pope and against the authors and fautors of the Popes partie whilest Henrie in the meane time triumphed and held his Empire still for that which he suffered from his sonne at last after fiue and twentie yeeres vnder a shew of religion as Frisingensis saith that makes little or nothing to this matter This was a pretext onely for a wicked sonne who was sicke of the Father before the time but the true cause was ambition and the burning desire of rule quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children and contrariwise as wee haue shewed at large other where One said excellently well patris longâ—oâ— vit a malo filio seruit us videtur CHAP. XI BY this as I suppose it is euident enough that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other wicked Princes because she then distrusted her might and strength nor because she could not reduce them to order without the great hurt of the people for indeed she might with more ease and lesse hurt to the people haue chastised those ancient Princes Then not onely Henry the fourth from whose businesse so lasting a schisme did spring but either Otho the fourth or Frederick the second or Philip Pulcher or Lewes the eleuenth or Iohn Nauarre or others against whom the Bishops being puffed vp with the successe of their affaires drew foorth their Sentences of Excommunication and depriuation of Kingdomes not for heresie nor for the euill gouernment of State nor at the request of the subiects but euen inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections I meane their priuate hatred To conclude not for that the state of the Church in that age would haue her Bishops more readie than in this time to suffer martyrdome for then the Church was in very safe estate and as we say sailed in the hauen as hauing been now anciently founded vpon the Apostolike constitutions and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs Yea such then was the state of the Church that there was much lesse need for Bishops to be readie for martyrdome than at this time for that so great a multitude then being as it were sprinckled with the fresh blood of the martyrs did in a maner sauour of nothing but martyrdome that the Pastour was no lesse admonished of his dutie by the example of the flocke than the seuerall persons of the people by the example of the Pastour But now ô lamentable case the case is quite otherwise the Church is tossed with most grieuous tempests and only not ouerwhelmed as yet with the furie of heretikes manie euen of those who desire to be called Catholikes being so affected that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles much lesse vndergoe death for true religion wherefore that life and heat may be giuen to that lukewarmnesse and that men might be stirred vp to the readiest way and as it were the shortest cut for their health who seeth not that there is need of Bishops to shew the way both by word and example and both to compose them themselues and to exhort others rather to martyrdome than to armes and insurrections to which we are prone by nature Who would not iudge that the fatherly pietie of Clement the eight ioyned with excellent wisdome whereby he endeuoureth to reduce to anâ—itie and to keepe in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church than the martiall furies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleuenth wherby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italie France Germanie Spaine and all 〈…〉 together by the cares 〈…〉 be thus surely we must needs confâ—â—◠〈…〉 ancient fathers of the Church 〈…〉 fault in that they did not only suffer 〈…〉 they might easily those guiltie and 〈…〉 of the saith but also courtcously reuerenced them and honoured them with regall titles and dignities or els we must needs thinke that they spared those maner of Princes for the reuerence of Maiestie the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone or surely we must beleeue that besides the reasons deliuered by the aduersaries there is yet some better behinde which none hitherto hath brought forth nor euer will as I suppose For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous worke which he writ against Kings to elude the â—orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers As though saith he
hath chosen the weake things of the world to confound the strong knowing that his Church only stood in need of spirituall armes did so from the beginning furnish her with them that she ouercame all humane power and might so as it might be said truly a Domino factum est illud est mirabile in oculis nostris S. Bernard writeth excellently as hee doth alwaies to Eugenius the Pope This is Peter who was not at any time knowen to walke clad in silkes or adorned with precious stones not couered with gold nor caried on a white steed nor waited on with a guard of souldiers nor compassed with troups of seruants attending on him and yet he thought that without these that wholesome Commandement might be discharged Siamas me pasce oues meas heerein thou hast succeeded not to Peter but to Constantine Therefore although the temporall power whereof we speake may seeme to men to be necessarie for the Church yet to God it seemed neither necessarie nor profitable peraduenture for that reason which the successe of matters and experience it selfe hath taught the posteritie least the Apostles and their successors trusting on humane authoritie should more negligently intend spirituall matters and should chiefly place their hope in armes and in a temporall authoritie and might which they ought to settle in the power of the word of God and in his singular helpe And indeed if a man would take a view in Storie of the state of the Church from the passion of Christ to this day he shall see altogether that she grew very soone and flourished very long vnder Bishops that were content with their owne authoritie that is with spirituall iurisdiction who being the Disciples of the humilitie of Christ iudged that the onely strength to defend the Church did consist in the power of preaching the Gospell and the diligent obseruation of Ecclesiastike Discipline without any mention of temporall power And againe â—â—om the time that certaine Popes went about to annex and adioine a soueraigne temporall gouernment to that spiritual soueraigntie which they had that the Church decased euery day both in the number of beleeuers and behauiour and vertue of gouernours and that same seueritie of the ancient discipline being either remitted or to speake more truely being omitted that many Ministers of the Church discharged their places more slothfully and carelesly then before I omit that if these mens reasons were good it would follow by contraries that the temporall common wealth as they speake hath power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the soueraigne Prince of the Ecclesiastike common wealth because It ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe in order to her end and to haue all power necessary to attaine to her end But the power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the Prince Ecclesiastike is necessary to the temporall end because otherwise wicked Ecclesiasticall Princes may trouble the state and quiet of a temporall common wealth and hinder the end of the ciuill gouernment as indeed diuerse Popes haue been causes of much vnquietnesse Therefore the temporall Common-wealth hath this power The consecution is vtterly false and absurd for a temporall Prince as he is such a one hath no spirituall power and therefore the other is false too to which this by analogie is a consequent But as we vse to speake dare absurdum non est soluere argumentum Therefore I doe answer otherwise to the former part of this second reason That here be not two common weales as he supposeth but one only wherein there be two powers or two Magistrates the Ecclesiastike and the Politike whereof each hath those things which he doth of necessity require to attaine his end the one his spirituall the other his temporall iurisdiction and that neither this iurisdiction is necessary to that power nor that for this Otherwise we must confesse that each power is destitute of her necessary meanes then when they were seuered as sometimes they were which I haue already shewed to be very false as well out of the end of the temporall or ciuill gouernment at it is such as by the state of the Church being established vnder heathen and infidell Princes According to this manner in one and the same ciuill policie I meane in one City or kingdome many magistrates are found inuested with diuerse offices power and authority who gouerne the common weale committed to them in parts euery one of whom receiueth from the King or common wealth necessary power to attaine the end of their charge so as none of them may or dare inuade and arrogate to themselues the iurisdiction and rule of an other If the Consuls want any part of the Tribunes power or the Tribunes any of the Consular iurisdiction it can not be said therefore that both haue need of an others power to compasse their ends for each office according to the ground of the first institution is perfect and furnished with all necessary authority for the execution of his charge Or to bring forth more known examples As in one kingdome and vnder one King there are two great offices whereof the one the Chancellor the other the Constable hath by commission from the King the one hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the speciall charge of the law and iustice the other the managing of armes and the gouernment of all military discipline committed to him and each of them according to the quality and condition of his office is absolute and receiueth from the King all authority necessary for the execution of his charge and the compassing of his end Neither if peraduenture one of them either of negligence or iniury doe hinder the course of the other may he that is so hindred by his proper authority disanull his office or vsurpe his iurisdiction or to be short enforce him to amend his fault but by lawfull meanes granted him by commission from the King but it is requisite that each complaine to the King of others abuse of whom they haue receiued their authority so distinguished in offices and function that he may right him that is wronged and determine by his owne power and iudgement the diuision of the whole cause Now so long as these officers doe agree in the kingdome the one maintaines an others authority and vseth of his owne to supply that which is wanting in the other But if a Country-man to auoid iudgement of law doe depart into the Campe to the Army the aide of the Martiall at armes being required he is wont to be sent backe to the place from whence he fled and of the contrary if one that forsakes his Coloures shall slip into the City the City Magistrate being requested by the Magistrate at armes will by and by see him conueighed to the Campe to be punished for his misdemeanour But where they doe disagree they giue those wounds to the Common-wealth which the Prince onely can helpe and cure because
because they are separated not by humane but by diuine power who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church by translation deposition or cession For quoth he not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome who beareth the person not of a pure man but of the true God in earth weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church dissolueth not by humane but rather by diuine authoritie Thus he These manner of speeches and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour that they suppose whatsoeuer is done by the Pope is done by God himselfe because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning I confesse that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words nor more hard for the sense that in expounding the same the wits of all Interpreters doe faile For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly plainly and cleerely then this That not man but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue Or what followeth more rightly of any thing then this of that position Ergo that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie which is consummate carnall copula betweene maried persons And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion and therefore wee must confesse that that whereof it followeth is false also because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true Which when Hostiensis had obserued when I say hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason But that reason quoth he sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it is not sufficient vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood for by that it would follow that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie But for all that Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth For that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie because as he saith before carnall copulation by a common dissent it may be dissolued the Popes authoritie comming betweene arg cap. 2 cap. expublico de conuers coniugat Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason for as touching the rescripts alleged by him and if there be any such like they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus in which case there is no neede of the Pope authoritie to interuene or any pontificiall dispensation but that they are warranted by meere right and the common helpe of the law who in that manner doe procure a separation and breake off matrimonie But that a matrimonie ratified and not yet consummate may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope by the common dissent of the parties that wee are to denie constantly and that according to the most learned Diuines For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or essence of matrimonie for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction and consent of mindes whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other But the procreation of children and the bed-fellowship for that cause is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie but to the end Hence is it said by the heathen that Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit Not the fellowship of the bedde but the consent of the mindes makes mariages And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions Otherwise surely that first mariage which God instituted in Paradise was not a mariage vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence began to prouide for issue then which what can be more absurd Moreouer there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church no authoritie of Fathers no decretall Epistle of the Pope in a word there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour matrimonie ratified although not consummate Quos Deus conâ—unxit homo ne separet Nay and hee cannot except vnlesse it be true that they who being contracted are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie are not ioined by God But there is in this matter as in others so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law that they are not ashamed to auerre that not onely matrimonie ratified but not consummate and that against the common iudgement of the Diuines but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction may be dissolued by the Pope aswell as by God himselfe which if it should bee true how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them who haue grace and power with the Pope or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes being blinded with desire of money J leaue to others to iudge But there is no cause why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons with words of the present time Contracted may in no case bee dissolued except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion For it is not credible that so learned and godly a Bishop had either so sodainely forgot himselfe or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius CHAP. XXIX NOw if any aske my opinion and interpretation of them I am not afraid to say as in a matter of this obscurity that I am at a stand notwithstanding that I doe thinke that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that the mind of this good Bishop and the sense of the wordes doe differ which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning or do omit some necessary particle or exception for to make the constitution plaine and entire for otherwise it is not likely that hee who denieth that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke that he may haue propertie of goods or marry a wife would affirme that the Pope may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate What is the matter then I will speake what I thinke I haue obserued that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine that although hee compare each mariage in this that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely yet where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop and Vicar of Iesu Christ he conioineth
them together no more nor makes mention of carnall matrimony but onely of spirituall which not deemed to be separated by man but by God himselfe then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered not out of humane but rather out of diuine authority by translation deposition or cession by which silence and omission of carnall Matrimony he doth sufficiently implie that in the manner of separation it doth differ and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this viz. the carnall as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner God hath reserued to his own iudgement the dissolution as well of the carnall as of the spirituall matrimony notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter the necessity or commoditie of the Churches c. may dissolue them which when he doth not man but God doth separate whose Person the Pope beareth in earth Now why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage and not a carnall also the reason is plaine and easie because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe and euerie way doth belong to the ordination gouernement and oeconomie of the Church which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage seeing they are not able without it to execute and discharge the office committed to them And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes themselues as Hierarches that is spirituall Gouernors doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters persons of the Church wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same who hath by name committed this dispensation and procuration to them But carnall matrimony was instituted not for the ordination of the Church but onely for procreation of issue and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature and to be common to all nations and countries neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church but that it is a Sacrament in the new law containing the my sterie of God and the soule of Christ and the Church And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors the power to dissolue the same They haue inough to discerne iudge if it be a mariage that they may know if it bee a sacrament Therefore although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage viz by remouing all impediments which doe arise out of the positiue law and ecclesiasticall constitutions and giue order that it may duly and rightly be contracted which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme yet when as either through the common law permitting or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited it was contracted hath no power for any cause in the world to relaxe and dissolue the same Neither doth it belong to the matter that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall we see often that separation is made of those persons as haue liued a long time together vnder the conceit and shew of mariage For neither the Pope in that case nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority doth dissolue any matrimony but by his iudgement declareth that the matrimony which indeede was contracted de fasto or was falsly supposed to be a mariage was no mariage at all enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together to depart one from an other and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance But this is not to dissolue Matrimony or to separate persons lawfully ioined as concerning the bond of mariage Whereby it is euident that both Innocentius the Interpreter who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name and also Ioh Andr. who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined let no man separate Of their owne authority say they but man doth not separate carnall matrimony when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope but God himselfe by whose authority those constitutions were made As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons and make a nullitie in the law because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted to breake or loose the band no constitution either of Pope or church can do Otherwise the Apostle in those words The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth but if her husband doe sleepe she is free I say he did ill to make mention of death onely if shee may be free by some other meanes viz. the Popes constitutions the mariage it selfe being dissolued And now since these things are thus it is time to returne from this by-way into which the vnreasonable flattery and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs into that path from whence wee haue digressed CHAP. XXX IT is now positiuely set downe and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters that the Pope cannot make grace to any of the naturall and diuine law or as we vsually speake now a dayes cannot dispense against the law of nature and of God and grant that that may bee done without guilt which God and nature haue forbidden or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done and this not onely the Diuines but also the Canonists of the better sort doe very earnestly maintaine Therefore this is a most grounded Axâ—ome whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter Surely we do admit his proposition which is That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues that hee may driue them away by all the meanes he is able Wee admit also the Assumption That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God are heretickes Where hee concludeth in this manner Ergo If a Prince of a sheepe or ramme turne Wolfe that is to say of a Christian turne an hereticke the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also may charge the people that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects Surely a very vnsound collection In stead whereof in good Logicke should bee put this conclusion Ergo If any Prince of a sheepe or a ramme turne Wolfe the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can For this ariseth rightly out of the former
subiect to the Temporall authoritie of secular Princes in those seuerall Countries wherein they liue and are punishable by the said Princes as well as other lay subiects in all cases that are not meerclie Spirituall Chap. 34. He returnes to the particular answere of Bellarmine his argument and sheweth that Excommunication workes onely so farre as to exclude from the companie of the faithfull but not to depriue Princes of any temporall estate Chap. 35. He propoundeth certaine reasons of Nicholas Sanders which had been omitted by Bellarmine for the establishing of the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes Chap. 36. He answereth the said reasons of Sanders touching Samuel and Saul 2. Touching Ahias the Shilonite 3. Touching Elias 4. Touching Elizeus his sword as reasons forged either of malice against the Prince then with whom he was angrie or of affection to the then Pope or some other fume of braine they haue so small colour to proue his purpose Chap. 37. He discusseth other examples alleaged by Bellarmine and first that of Ozias the King of Iuda and herein he taxeth Bellarmine his slight dealing to transcribe out of other mens collections such matters as they haue either negligently or maliciouslie wrested against the direct and pregnant storie of the Scriptures as appeareth in this example Chap. 38. He discusseth another example touching Athalia and Ioiadas the high Priest which hee sheweth to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and nothing attailing to conclude his purpose Chap. 39. He discusseth a third example from Ambrose Bishop of Millane and Theodosius the Emperour and maketh it plaine how little it makes for the Popes authoritie temporall ouer Emperours and Kings Chap. 40. Hee answereth Bellarmines examples of the latter Popes first by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preuention out of Sotus That the act of Popes makes not an Article of the faith Secondly by the testimonie of Platina he conuinceth the whole storie related by Bellarmine touching Pope Gregorie the 2 and Leo the 3 Emperour of vntruth Chap. 41. He answereth another instance of Bellarmine touching Pope Zacharie and Chilperique King of France the very explication of which whole businesse is refutation sufficient to frustrate Bellarmine his purpose in alleaging the same to winne any temporall authoritie to Popes ouer Christian Princes GVIL BARCLAII I. C. Of the Authoritie of the Pope whether and how farre forth he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber Posthumus MAny men haue written of this Argument especially in our time diuersly and for diuers respects but none more learnedly and cleerely then the most woorthie Cardinall and most learned Diuine Rob. Bellarmine in those bookes which he hath written of the chiefe or Romane Bishop Who as he hath notably prooued the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power of the Bishop of Rome so if he could haue confirmed with more sound weight of authorities and reasons that temporall power which hee affirmeth out of the opinion of certaine Diuines that hee hath there were nothing in that Treatise which might iustly be reprehended or required by any man If therefore many both Diuines and Ciuilians one after another haue emploied themselues in the discussing of this question and the iudgement of the former writers thereof hath beene no preiudice to the opinion of them which followed why should not I also since I haue spent my time in this studie challenge after a sort by a peculiar interest some place in the searching of the truth it selfe But before I beginne to shew what I thinke of this matter there must some care and diligence be vsed by me by way of Prouision Least either any weak ones should conceaue any scandall who esteeme the Pope to bee a God who hath all power in heauen and earth that I may vse Gerson◠words or any aide seeme to come to the calumnies of the Nouators wherewith they prosecute the Apostolike sea that they might depriue the chiefe Pastor of souls of all his authoritie Therefore the Reader must vnderstand thus much that I doe beare to that Sea all reuerence good will neither do goe about either here or any where else to diminish any thing of the power and dignitie due to the Vicar of Christ and the successor of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul by whose patronage I doe piously and plainly perswade my selfe that I am daily assisted but that I haue this purpose onely to search without all guile deceit without loue and hatred what and how great that power is which all Christians ought to acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome that is in the chiefe Bishop and Pope as they call him and without those assertions which wrest mens mindes to one side or other that I onely haue God before mine eies least at the returne of the Lord I be challenged either for the vnprofitable emploiment or the hiding of my talent Therefore I desire them who haue written before mee of a good minde as I suppose that they take it not in scorne or anger if I depart from their opinion For as I may say with S. Augustine wee ought not to esteeme euery mans disputation although they bee Catholike and praise woorthie as if they were Canonicall Scriptures as though it were not lawfull for vs sauing the reuerence which is due vnto them to mislike and refuse some things in their writings if perhaps wee shall finde that they thinke otherwise then the truth beares being by the helpe of God vnderstood by others or by our selues As I my selfe am in the writings of other men so would I haue the vnderstanding Readers to bee in mine that they would either curteouslie admit or with reason reprehend But to the matter There is amongst Catholikes for what others thinke I force not a whit but those too much addicted to the Pope a twofold opinion touching this question one is of the Canonists who affirme that All rights of heauenly and earthly gouernment are granted by God to the Pope and that whatsoeuer power is in this world whether Temporall and Ciuill or Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall is conferred by Christ vpon Peter and his successors to which principle they doe easily draw any thing so often as any disputation ariseth touching the absolute power or as they vse to speake touching the fulnesse of the power of the Pope The other is the opinion of certaine Diuines who do iustly dislike this ground of the Canonists because it is not cleerely prooued either by authoritie of Scripture nor tradition of Apostles nor practise of the auncient Church nor by the doctrine and testimonies of the auncient Fathers Therefore these doe by most sound reasons conuince their opinion I meane of the Canonists but yet in such manner as that by the losse of that the Pope looseeth neuer a whit the more of his temporall interest and power but they see that safely bestowed and doe preserue it safe and sound for him For they hold thus That the Pope as Pope hath not
out of 〈◊〉 his house and the friends of the Emperor to aâ—cend into it CHAP. X. NO◠〈◊〉 to thâ— Bishop Frisingensis a man most 〈…〉 as I said and almost an eye witnesse of these things Hee both in the place produced by vs and also in others bewraieth plainly that he allowed not that decree of the Pope touching the deposing of the Emperour but that he holds it to be new insolent and vniust For first for the noueltie and insolencie of that Act he writeth thus I read and read againe the Actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and doe finde no where that any of them before this was excommunicate or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome And againe in the first booke touching the gestes of Frederike Gregorie the VII saith he who then held the Bishoprike of the Citie of Rome decrees that the Emporour as one forsaken of his friends should be shaken with the sword of Excommunication The noueltie and strangenesse of this action did so much more vehemently affect the Empire already mooued with indignation because before that time neuer any such sentence was knowen to haue been published against the Princes of the Romanes Now he declares the iniustice and iniquitie of the fact in diuers respects First because amongst those euils and mischiefes which did spring out of that decree of the Pope he reckons the mutation and defection both of Pope and King that Pope was set aboue Pope as King aboue King by which wordes he shewes that both of them by a like right or ratherby a like wrong was made that as Pope was set vpon Pope by the Emperour vniustly so also was King vniustly set vpon King by the Pope Then in that he saith Because therefore the kingdome in his Prince c. what doth that imply other then that by reason of the Empire violated in the Prince the Church was violated in the Bishop or else for the kingdome wounded in the Prince the Church was wounded in the Bishop Betweene which seeing he makes no difference of right or wrong and both of them could not be done iustly it followeth that hee thinketh both of them was done vniustly Moreouer hee calleth as well the defection of Rodolphus whom the Pope had created Emperour as the insurrection of Henrie his sonne of the Excommunicate Father I say he calleth them both openly and simply plaine Rebellion which surely he would neuer haue done if hee had beleeued that Henry was lawfully depriued of his Empire for there can bee no rebellion but against a Superiour and therefore it could not be against an Heretike who if he were justly depriued and deposed was no more a Superiour Therefore he thus writeth of Rodolphus And not long after the two foresaid Captaines Guelfe and Rodolphus rebelling against their Prince vpon what occasion it is vncertaine are ioyned with the Saxons And a little after But the Bishop of Rome Gregorie who at this time as it hath beere said stirred vp Princes against the Emperour writ his letters secretly and openly to all that they should create an other Emperour But heere we must know by the way that he saith vpon what occasion it is doubtfull that it is to be vnderstood of a priuate occasion as many are wont to spring betweene a King and his Nobles as in our age betweene Borbonius and king Francis the Guise and Henry Orange and Philip for each of them both Guelfo and Rodolphus pretended a publike occasion that is to say the furious behauiour of Henricus and also for that hee was excommunicate and deposed from his kingdome by the Pope as writeth Albert Schafnaburgensis and so they couered priuate hatred as Rebels vse to doe with a publique pretence But touching the Sonne our Bishop Frisingensis writeth in this manner Afterward againe in the yeere following when the Emperour celebrated the Natiuitie of the Lord at Moguntia Henry his sonne enters into rebellion against his Father in the parts of Noricum by the counsell of Theobald a Marques and Berengarius an Earle vnder the colour of Religion because his Father was excommunicate by the Bishop of Rome and hauing drawen to his partie certaine great Personages out of the East part of France Alemania and Baioaria he enters into Saxonie a country and Nation easily to bee animated against their King Heere let the Reader obserue two things One that this Author a man notable for knowledge and pietie calleth this insurrection of Henry the sonne against Henry the Father a Rebellion the other that both heere and in other places he euer calls Henry the Father King and Emperour although he had been now about fiue and twentie yeeres excommunicate and depriued of his Kingdome by the Popes sentence and first Rodolphus and then 〈◊〉 were set into his place by the Pope and the Rebels whereby he shewes sufficiently that hee thinkes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Kings or to determine of their temporall gouernment and therfore that the Decree of Gregorie was neither iust nor lawfull otherwise neither Henry could haue been called King nor his aduersaties Rebels without iniurie to the Bishop of Rome There is also another place of the same Authors wherin he 〈◊〉 the same more plainly that is that the Pope by that excommunication and abdication hath taken no right of his Kingdome from Henry for after that he had related that 〈◊〉 who was sonne in law to Rodolâ—us whom as hath been said the Pope had created King hauing killed his Father in law and vsurped the Dukedome of Swâ—uia as granted to him by his Father in law and one the other side that Henrie who had been deposed by the Popes sentence had granted the same Dukedome to a certaine Nobleman of Sweuia whose name was Frederike who forced Bertolphus to conditions of peace ad ex 〈…〉 Ducaius he addeth This Berâ—ode although in this businesse he yeeldeth both to the Empire and to Iustice yet he is reported to haue beene a reâ—olute and a valiant man Behold how he vsing no manner of Circuition affirmes that both Empire and Iustice stands on his part against whom the Pope had long before passed the sentence of Dâ—position but not with Rodolphus being called to the Kingdome by the authoritie of the Pope with this Epigraphe now twise related aboue Petra dedit Petro c. Lastly seeing he seriously saith and teacheth That Kings haue none aboue them but God whom they may feare doth he not euen by this conclusion teach vs that the Bishop of Rome hath no temporall authoritie whereby he may dispose in any manner of their kingdomes and gouernments And surely although there were nothing else for which that hainous action of Pope Gregorie might be misliked surely so many lamentable and desastrous euents so many fatall and wofull accidents which springing out of that iurisdiction which was then first vsurped and practised by the Pope against the Emperour afflicted the whole Empire full fiue and
of all men who might by the law of nature constitute an Emperor ouer them not from the Bishop of Rome who hath no authority to giue a King or Emperor to any Prouince in the world without the consent of the same The same Cardinall being himselfe both a great Diume and Philosopher addeth many other things in that place by which he confirmes our distinction and declares that Emperors and Kings are both ouer and vnder the Popes And thus much touching the first reason of Bellarmine and the arguments brought by him to prooue the same CHAP. XVII THe second reason followes which is concluded by two fould arguments The second reason saith he the Ecclesiastike Common-weale ought to be perfect and in it selfe sufficient in order to her end For such are all Common-weales rightly founded therefore ought shee to haue all power necessary to attaine her end But the power to vse and to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to this Spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might with impunity nourish Heretikes and ouerturne religion therefore shee hath this power also Againe euery Common-wealth because it ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe may command another Common-wealth which is not subiect to it and constraine it to change the Gouernment yea euen to depose hir Prince and to appoint another when it cannot otherwise defend it selfe from hir ininries therefore much more may the Spirituall Common-weale command the Temporall Common-weale being subiect to hir and force it to change the Gouernment and to depose the Princes and appoint others seing she cannot otherwise maintaine hir Spirituall good I answer that heere are so many faults in this place as it seemeth that the Author did either idlely and carelesly transcribe all this out of some other or if it be all his owne that he did not very well remember those things which he had said before For a little before when as he laboured by another argument to prooue that the Ciuill power is subiect to the Ecclesiastike he affirmed that these powers were parts only of one Common-wealth and that they did constitute only one Common-wealth The first reason saith he is thus The Ciuill power is subiect to the Spirituall power because each of them is a part of the same Christian Common-wealth And againe secondly Kings Bishops and Clerikes and Laikes do not make two Common-wealthes but one But in this place he quite changes these two Powers into two Common-wealthes which therefore ought to be so seuered and disioyned as that Kings and Laikes doe make a Politike and Temporall Common-wealth Bishops and Clerikes a Spirituall or Ecclesiastike then which nothing could be spoken more absurdly or vnfitly for the present purpose For either he speaketh in this place of an Ecclesiastike power which is wholy seuered from the Ciuill power as it was once in the time of the Apostles and now is in those places where Christians laie amongst Heathen and Infidesl in which case it is euident that the Power or Common-wealth Ecclesiastike as he calles it or the Prince and Hierarch thereof hath no authority at all not so much as Spirituall ouer the Ciuill Prince because he is not a child of the Church Or he speakes of the power Ecclesiastike ioyned with the Ciuill as in a Christian Common-wealth and then hee doth wrong to make hir two Common-wealthes one Ecclesiastike and the other Politike when as they be onely two powers of one Christian Common-wealth and parts and members of one Church and Misticall body of Christ as himselfe deliuered before Further it is fals which he assumes That the power to vse to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to a spiritual end c. For the Prince of the Apostles himselfe openly teacheth that he had no such manner of authority ouer the temporalities of Christians except those which themselues of their owne accord did confer and offer to the Church when he saith Ananias why hath Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the holy Spirit and defraud of the price of the field Whilest it remained did it not belong to thee and being sould was it not in thy power If the Apostles had had power to dispose of the temporalties of Christians Peter surely had not said Did it not c. and when as Ananias might presently haue replied yes you had power to dispose of my goods and therefore fearing least you would take from mee more then was cause I concealed part of the price But because the Church had not this power therefore without cause did he lye to the holy Ghost And how if out of this foundation of Bellarmine it should follow that the primitiue Church had not all necessarie power to attaine vnto her end for for the space of 300 yeeres and more wherein she liued vnder heathen Princes after the passion of Christ she neuer had this power to dispose of Christians temporalties in which time notwithstanding it is most certaine that an infinite multitude of men and almost the greatest part of the world had giuen their names to Christ and that a more seuere and strict discipline raigned in the Church then at any time beside that it is impious to say that the Church was not then furnished with all necessarie meanes of Right and of Fact to attaine her end for the workes of God are perfect And surely he should doe Christ no small iniurie who thinkes that the Church is by him left and deliuered to the Apostles destitute of necessarie meanes for her preseruation Whatsoeuer was necessarie for the Church to attaine her end was abundantly and plentifully bestowed by Christ on his Apostles when he said Ego dabo vobis os sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere contradicere omnes aduersarij vestri Therfore whosoeuer conceiues that Christ recommended his Church to Peter and willed him thrice to feede his Lambes and Sheepe and supposeth that for the feeding of those sheepe and to the accomplishing of the end of his commandement he did not grant them all things necessarie both in Right and in Fact hee seemes to me no better then an Atheist and to doubt of the prouidence power and goodnesse of God Let vs imagine that he did not giue all power necessarie for the execution of so great a charge can any other reason why he did not be assigned then for because either the Lord knew not what was needfull or had no abilitie in him to giue it or which is a point of extreame malice he meant to deceiue his seruants and friends by enioyning that dutie vnto them which hee knew very well that they were neuer able to performe By these things it is cleare that the temporall authoritie and power to depose Princes is no way necessarie for the Church to attain her end although in humane consideration it may seeme sometimes to be profitable For God who hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and
long as the Church serued vnder heathen Princes And this is the ground of our demonstration with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner beene set down and granted that is to say That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest because hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill the Law And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith it is certaine that all Clergie men continued in the same order and ranke as farre as concerned temporall subiection wherein they were before when their Princes liued in their infidelitie because the Law of Christ depriueth no man of his particular interest as hath beene said And in that regard priuileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergie which they should not haue needed at all if the Clergie had not remained and that by absolute right as before vnder the authoritie and iurisdiction of Princes These things are so cleere and plaine and so witnessed and proued by so many testimonies and monuments that it may be thought a needlesse paines to remember them in this place or to adde any thing to them Therefore let vs see that which followeth I meane let vs see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles by a manifest demonstration and necessarie conclusion It is in no place recorded by any Writer that the Princes who haue endowed the Clergie with these priuileges and exemptions did set them so free from themselues that they should not be further subiect vnto them nor acknowledge their Maiestie or obey their Commandement Reade those things which are written of those priuileges you shall not finde the least testimonie of so great immunitie amongst them all They only granted to the Clergie that they should not bee conuented before secular Magistrates but before their proper Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Iudges Now this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authoritie of the Princes themselues or to offer preiudice to their iurisdiction and authority if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergie mens causes in cases which are not meerely spirituall Nay Princes could not nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergie liuing in their kingdomes that libertie and immunitie that they should not bee subiect to them in their temporall authoritie and when they offend bee iudged and punished by them but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principalitie and gouernment For it is a propertie inseparable to Princes to haue power to correct offenders and lawfully to gouerne all the members of the Common-wealth I meane all his Citizens and subiects with punishing and rewarding them And as in a naturall bodie all the members are subiect to the head and are gouerned and directed by it so as it must needs seeme a monstrous bodie where are seene superfluous members and such as haue no dependencie of the head euen so in this politicke bodie it is very necessarie that all the members should bee subiect to the Prince as to the head and bee gouerned by him that is to receiue reward or punishment from him according as each of them deserue in the state But the Clerickes as the aduersaries confesse besides that they are Clerickes are also Citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill Common-wealth which is true and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdome and obtaine the first place Therefore as Citizens and parts of the ciuill Common-wealth they are subiect to the Prince neither can they although the Prince would but be subiect to him in temporalties and otherwise either were he no Prince or they no Citizens Therefore it is a foolish thing to suppose and imagine that a Clergy man being conuented for any cause whatsoeuer so it be not meerely spirituall may auoid the Palace of the soueraigne Prince or of him to whom the Prince vpon certaine knowledge hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof For in that Princes doe verie seldome heare the causes of the Clergie that argueth want not of power but of disposition Hence is it I meane out of this temporall authoritie of secular Princes ouer the Clergie that in our time Charles the V. being Emperour caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colonie to appeare before him to cleere himselfe of the crimes which the Clergie and the Vniuersitie said against him and that in many places the Princes haue reserued to themselues certaine offenses of the Clergie to be specially punished and doe commit the same to the knowledge and iudicature of their officers as are those crimes which are called Priuilegiate in France as of Treason bearing of Armes counterset money peace broken and the like neither are wee to thinke that heereby any iniurie is done to the Clergie or that the Ecclesiasticall libertie is in any manner hindred or diminished Many haue Ecclesiasticall libertie in their mouthes who know not a â—ot what it is We will in another place declare more plainly what it is and in what points it consisteth Seeing these things stand thus euery man I thinke may see that all the immunitie of Clergie men as well for their persons as for their causes and goods haue proceeded from secular Princes but not as some imagine is either due by the Law of God or granted them by the Pope or Canons For that which Bellarmine bringeth both for a supplement and a reason that he might proue how that the Pope and Councels did simply exempt Clerickes from the temporall iurisdiction viz. That the Imperiall Law ought to yeeld to the Canon Law that is not generally true but then only when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticke but the subiection or immunitie of Clergie men in ciuill affaires is not a matter meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but rather ciuill and temporall in which cases the sacred Canons doe not disdaine to come after the ciuill Lawes Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after That the Pope may command the Emperour ouer those things which belong to the authoritie of the Church As if hee should say that the Pope may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church For euen by this we may discerne that this is false that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes and Officers of Princes Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church for that was no lesse before but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring Hence arose that question whether it were lawfull for Princes euery one within his territories without any iniurie to the church in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the
No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours as concerning temporall matters Ergo hee had no temporall authority ouer them that hee might iudge them in temporalties The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour a superiour I meane in that very point whereof the iudgement is made For as we haue often said Par in parem non habet imperium And in nature it cannot be that one and the same person should be both inferiour superiour in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same matter no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries when as they affirme and clearely confirme by reasons That the exception vnlesse you wil say exemption of Cleriques in ciuill causes aswell concerning their persons as Gods was brought or by the law of man For as Augustine witnesseth humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes as we shewed in the last Chapter before And that euen of their meere and free bounty for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church to grant the Clergy those priuiledges seeing it is not found to be expressed prouided by no law of God And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right interest as thēselus confesse we haue often signified And therfore as their owne learning carieth Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties By all this discourse it followeth that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges of exemptions and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope and other Clergie persons Therefore that which might be done let vs suppose it was done that is that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie or priuiledge doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince as his fellow Bishops and Brethren in France Spaine and Britanie and in other kingdomes doe Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties to whome hee is temporally subiect Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours then he had before through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties But if any bee so fond perhaps to say that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church viz. to iudge and depose euill princes but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered that he could not exercise it so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties But now after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes made himselfe a temporall princes there is nothing to hinder but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation I must answere him nothing else but that the things he speaketh are not onely false but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnpossible setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse and which is most true that is to say that the Popes before such time as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction were subiect to them both de iure and de facto For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power for that it is not competent but by right of superiority Now it implieth a contradiction that the Pope was by right superiour and by right inferiour at the same time in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature and the most holy rule of life they must needes bee in a great error who affirme that this soueraigne authority wherof we speake was by Christ conferred on Peter and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons and full weake patched vp together of similitudes comparisons allegories and such like stuffe as you may see by that which wee haue refuted All which are to be reiected and little esteemed when as by the position and granting of them some absurditie doth follow as in this point or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines The third argument saith he is this A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe as is conuenient for them Ergo the Pope may and ought command Christians those things and inforce them to these things to which euery one of them in his condition is bound that is constraine euery one to serue God in that manner wherein they ought according to their state and condition But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it and vnlesse they doe it to enforce them by excommunication and other conuenient meanes Surely I see not what is contained in this argument which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode Now the Popes reuenewes although they be great would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion for hee saith to enforce by Excommunication and other conuenient meanes meaning Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke not a temporall Shepheard but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule
vse a temporall authority euen ouer them who haue receiued authoritie ouer others And if any Bishop may doe that much more the Prince of Bishops Thus he And this example also is very farre from the matter in question wherein appeareth neither mention nor so much as any token of a temporall authority of a Bishop ouer an Emperour or any thing else whereby it may be concluded by any probable argument that such an authority doth belong to a Bishop but wholy belongeth to that spirituall authority of a Bishop which we both in heart acknowledge and confesse with the mouth that the pope hath ouer all Christians of what order or place so euer they be Ambrose excommunicated the Emperour for an offence committed by the iniust slaughter of many men doth not this belong to the spirituall iurisdiction of the Church which at this time Ambrose did exercise by his Episcopall authority But he could not excommunicate saieth he vnlesse he had vnderstood and iudged of that cause before although it were criminall and belonged to the externall Court Yes he might de facto as vnaduised Priests doe whome I haue seene sometimes send out an excommunication without tendring of the cause but de iure he ought not otherwise he should haue beene an iniust iudge if he had punished the delinquent party without hearing of the cause But let it be so he vnderstood the cause and iudged him worthy of censure and therefore did excommunicate the Emperour what then But he could not vnderstand and iudge of such a cause saith hee vnlesse also hee had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an Externall Court Alas wee are catched in a snare vnlesse wee beware this peece of sophistry there lurketh in this assertion an exceeding cunning deceit by these words In an Externall Court A Court is twofold Politique or Ciuill and Ecclesiasticke or Spirituall The ciuill Court is wholy externall the Ecclesiasticke is subdiuided into externall and internall The externall Court Ecclesiasticke is wherein the causes belonging to the notice of the Church are openly handled and iudged and if they be criminall punishment is taken of them by ExcoÌ„munication interdiction suspension depositioÌ„ or by other means and oftentimes both the temporall and spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iudge doe heare the same crime euen in the externall Court but each of them in his proper Court and to impose diuers penalties as the ciuill Iudge taketh knowledge of adultery vt sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur The Iudge Eclesiastique also taketh knowledge who hath the care of the soule to admonish the offender of his fault and if he persist in offending to chastise him with spiritualll punishments But the internall Court of the Church which is called the Court of the soule the Court of Poenitencie the Court of Conscience is that wherein the Priest takes notice and iudgeth of the sins reuealed to him by the conscience and in his discretion doth enioine him Poenitency according to the quality of the sinne For now the common opinion is that Poenitential constitutions are arbitrary that not only the Bishop but also any discreete Confessor may regularly moderate and mitigate them in the Court of the soule If therefore Bellarmine by forum externum do vnderstand the Ecclesiasticall Court which is content with spirituall paines onely wee grant all which hee saith For Ambrose was the lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in that Court and that he openly declared in deed and in effect when as hee did excommunicate him But when this is set down and granted there can nothing bee gathered from hence to confirm the temporall authority of Bishop or Pope because aswell the iudgement as the punishment was spirituall But if Bellarmine by forum externum vnderstand the ciuill Court it is most false which he propoundes for as the powers ecclesiasticke and ciuill are distinguished of God so are their Courts dictinct their iudgements distinct For the same Mediator of God and men Christ Iesus hath seuered the offices of each power by their proper actions and distinct dignitus Surely hee doth Ambrose great wrong if he thinke that after hee had obtained the Bishopricke hee heard and iudged criminall causes in a ciuill Court Ambrose then was no lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall ciuil Court which is inough to proue that hee could not iudge or punish the Emperour with any temporall punishment But you will say Ambrose heard and iudged of the slaughter It is true but not as a ciuill and temporall Iudge J say I did not take knowledge of the crime for the same end for which the secular Iudge doth that place out of Aristotle is very good that many may take knowledge of one and the same subiect diuersly and after a diuers manner end and intention Jt is the same right angle which the Geometrician searcheth to vnderstand and the handicrafts man to worke by it So it is the same crime whereof the Laicke Iudge taketh notice that hee may punish the offender by death banishment the purse or by some other temporall punishment and which the ecclesiasticall Iudge knoweth that for the quality of the offence he may enioine spirituall punishment and Penitence At coegit Imperatorem adlegem politicum ferendam viz. he constrained the Emperour to make a ciuill law and therefore hee vsed a temporall authority ouer him A â—est If hee constrained him by what power by feare of what did hee constraine him The summe of the story will teach vs that which is thus Ambrose had cast on Theodosius the band of excommunication from whence when the Emperour desired to be deliuered the graue Prelate denies to doe it before such time as hee see in him some fruit of repentance what paenitence saith he haue you shewed after so hainous a crime or with what medicine haue you cured your grieuons wounde The Emperour answered that it is the office of the Bishop to temper and lay a medicine to the wound that is to say to enioine poenitencie to the sinner but of the Poenitent to vse those medicines which are giuen him that is to say to performe the poenitency enioined vnto him Ambrose hearing this for poenitence and satisfaction he imposed vpon the Emperour the necessity to make this law whereof we speake which being made and enacted for presently the Emperour commaunded the law to bee ordained Ambrose did loose him fram his bonds of excommunication Therefore in this case Ambrose vsed no temporall authoritie against Theodosius but whatsoeuer it was he commaunded by vertue and power of his spirituall iurisdiction neither did the Emperour obey this Prelate for feare of any temporall punishment for if hee would not haue obeied but as wicked Princes sometimes doe had contemned both the excommunication and the absolution Ambrose could goe no further at all But because the godly Prince was carefull for his soule lest hee beeing bound too long with this spirituall chaine might through the long imprisonment gather filthinesse
and vncleannesse hee obeied the will of the Bishop and that hee might obtaine of him the benefite of absolution hee performed at the admonition of the Bishop a temporall office which seemed to bee profitable for the common wealth Vpon which occasion the Author of the history saith For this so great vertue both the Emperour and the Bishop were famous For I admire both the liberty of the one the obedience of the other Againe the burning of the zeale of the one and the purity of faith in the other Ambrose then constrained Theodosius iust as our Confessaries at this day doe constraine their Poenitents to whome they often deny absolution of their crime where they seriously promise that they will performe that office or burden which in place of Poenitence they lay on them when as yet they haue no temporall iurisdiction ouer them He forced him likewise euen as any of vs vseth to force his neighbour or fellow Burgesse when we deny that to him which hee desireth to be done or giuen him by vs vnlesse hee first do that which wee desire for our friends sake or our own To be short it is a common thing that a man is constrained or enforced by reason by loue by griefe by anger and by other affections and passions of the mind without any authority of temporall and spiritual iurisdiction These things standing thus it is worth the obseruation in this example that the Ecclesiasticall power doth often with feare of spirituall punishment enforce men to performe temporall duties as in this place Ambrose did the Emperour and of the contrary that the ciuill power doth many times by feare of temporall paines driue others to performe spirituall offices as when a Prince compelleth heretickes or schismaticks to returne to the Church for feare of bodily punishment or losse of goods and yet neither can the one impose temporall punishment nor the other spirituall but by accident as they say The fourth followeth The fourth saith he is of Gregory the first in the Priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus and is to bee seene in the end of the Epistles If saith he any King Prelate Bishop or person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicke authority and of our commaundement of what dignity or honour soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour If Bishop Gregory should liue at this day and vnderstand that these words of his are taken in that sense as though he had authority to depriue Kings of their honour and dignity hee would surely cry out that it is a calumnious and a wrested interpretation and that he neuer so much as dreamed of any such matter and indeed those things which in other places are left written by him doe vtterly discredite this exposition These then are the words not of a commaunder but of a curser whereby he chargeth and adiureth all kind of men that they doe not violate the priuiledge granted by him which if they shall doe that God will be the reuenger to depriue them of honour which kind of admonition and imprecation is at this day wont to bee added to the ends of the Popes Bulles and constitutions in this manner Therefore it may be lawfull for no man to in fringe this page c. or of presumption to contrary the same but of any shall presume to attempt it let him incurre the indidgnation of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul or that which is the same let him know that he shall incurre CHAP. XL. BY that which hath beene said the Reader will easily see that it is true which before I set down that there cannot bee found either in the holy Scriptures or writings of holy Fathers any printe or example of the temporall authority of the Pope and therefore that they do not well nay that they offend very greeuously who labour to strengthen an opinion most false in it selfe by arguments and examples so remote and impertinent By these meanes they deceiue the vnlearned and are derided by the learned I haue already proued very plainely that there is no force in the former examples to proue that which the aduersaries affirme And for the examples following I take lesse thought to answer For although some of them doe fit the purpose of the aduersaris and shew that Popes did sometimes vse temporall authority in the last ages of the Church notwithstanding because they containe nothing but the singular actions of Popes who no man denieth but that they were men and might commit faults and slippes after the manner of men in so much as it is now celebrated by a common Prouerbe which we remembred before out of Sotus Factum Pontificum non facit fidei articulum that is The act of the Popes doth not make an article of faith therefore touching their acts wherin they haue endeauoured to exercise such an authority the question and disputation is behinde touching the lawfulnesse thereof whether they were done lawfully yea or no Neither ought that to moue vs at all the writers of the stories who haue in their writings recorded the acts of the Popes haue added no note or touch of reprehension but rather haue allowed and commended them For I see that there were many reasons for that First because all the writers of that time were either Monkes or at the least Clergy men who tooke most care to increase and amplifie the dignity of the Popes and therefore they were very wary and heedfull not to reprehend or checke any actions of the Popes and to accuse them of iniustice Secondly for that in those times so great was the opinion of the Pope that the multitude receiued and embraced in estimation all his actions as if they had beene done by God himselfe in which respect Iohn Gerson said not without reason That the common people doth imagine the Pope as a God who hath all authority in heauen and in earth My selfe haue seene aboue fifty yeares agone in Scotland when as that Kingdome did as yet stand sound in faith and religion that the name of the Pope of Rome for so they spake Scotishly the Pape of Rome was had in such reuerence with the multitude that whatsoeuer was told them to haue beene said or done by him was esteemed of all men as an oracle and as a thing done by God himselfe Lastly for that a present danger did hang ouer their heades which danger to this day bindeth the hands and mussles the mouthes of many lest if they should write any thing which was harsh and vnpleasing to the Pope or should taxe and find fault with his actions as well the writer as his writing should forth with be stricken with the Popes curses which cannot seeme strange to those who doe know that the anger and arrogancie of Pope Sixtus V. did burne so farre that as I touched before hee had determined to destroy and quite extinguish the trim and goodly disputations of Bellarmine because hee
thought that that excellent Diuine had not sufficiently inough satisfied his ambition when as notwithstanding hee had giuen him a great deale more then he should haue done Besides all these reasons this is somewhat that the chiefe dutie of a story writer consisteth in reporting not in iudging in which regard many who excelled more in remembrance of things done then in iudgement of them applied their thoughts to the historicall narration and contenting themselues with the paked and simple relation onely of all occurrents did leaue indifferent the equity thereof to all mens censures Therefore although wee owe to those men the true knowledge and faithfull report of matters passed which they in their writings reserued and conuaied to posterity yet we apprehend and receiue the equity and iustice of those actions not from the commendation of the writers but either from the authority of the scriptures or traditions of the Apostles or the ancient decrees of the Church or lastly from the right rule of naturall reason And so here will be the point alwaies to enquire and examine the equity of euery action and to search diligently not what the author of a story hath praised or dispraised but what ought to bee praised or dispraised by good right and desert Therefore I stand not much vpon examples which neither are found and commended in the Scriptures nor are not proued to be worthy commendation by some of those waies at the least which we haue set downe For assuredly it is a very dangerous matter for a man to propound to himselfe examples to imitate being not before weighed in this ballance and by these waights seeing that they that apply themselues to reade monuments of antiquity shall more often light vpon more euill examples then good and vertuous For which cause the Emperour doth grauely admonish all Iudges non exemplis sed legibus esse iudicandum and that in all businesses they ought not to follow that which hath been by great Magistrates before them sed veritatem legum iustitiae vestigia These considerations aduise me not to dwell verie long vpon the prolixe and exquisite discussion and examination of the rest of the Examples produced by Bellarmine vnlesse I shall obserue peraduenture that there is somewhat couched in them whereby the vnwary Reader may be ensnared vnder a pretence and opinion of a truth Therefore for some of them let vs see which and what they be The fift is of Gregory the II. saith he who forbad tribute to be paid by the Italians to the Emperour Leo the Image-breaker being excommunicate by him and by that meanes cut a part of his Empire from him Surely I thinke in this example the truth of the businesse as it passed is not set downe although I know it is so reported by certaine Writers of storie And that which induceth me to thinke so is both the excellent learning of that Pope ioined with a speciall integritie of life and also the testimony of Platina in this matter who amongst all the worthy actions of that Pope reporteth this that by his owne authoritie hee withstood the Italians being willing to fall away from that impious Prince and to chuse another Emperour ouer them For so writeth Platina But then the Emperour Leo the Third when hee could not openly inueigh against the Pope publisheth an Edict that all they who were vnder the Roman Empire should dispatch and carrie cleane away out of the Churches the Statues and Images of all Saints Martyrs and Angels to take away Idolatrie as he said and he that did otherwise he would hold him for a publike enemie or Traitor But Gregorie doth not onely not obey so great impietie but also admonisheth all Catholikes that they would not in any sort commit so great an errour through the feare or Edict of the Prince With which cohortation the people of Italie was so encouraged that they went very neere to chuse another Emperour but Gregorie laboured with all the power he could that it should not be And Platina addeth that this Pope as a most holy man often admonished the Emperour by Letters that he would let goe the errours of some ill disposed persons about him and embrace the true faith at the length and that he would forbeart to destroy the Images of the Saints by whose memorie and example men might be stirred vp to the imitation of vertue I doe giue credit to this Author in this point aboue other more ancient Writers especially strangers the rather for that he by the Commandement of Sixtus Quintus a Pope hath written the Popes liues and that at Rome where he was furnished with many helpes of ancient Monuments to finde out the truth of matters that passed in the Citie and in Italie which others wanting as appeareth did receiue nothing but vncertain reports and scattered rumours of men who many times report that to be done which they would faine haue done for a certaine and cleere truth If Platina had in silence passed ouer the former part of the storie surely hee had confirmed as it were by a secret consent the opinion of these men who haue otherwise written of Gregorie But seeing that hee was not ignorant that they had written so being a man much conuersant in those stories and yet notwithstanding doth with a plaine contradiction impugne their opinion it is very probable that hee had farre better and more assured testimonies in the relation of those things which were done by this Pope Wherefore it seemeth more reasonable and more agreeable to the truth to follow Platina in this matter and to note a lie in the writings of Zonaras seeing it is prooued in experience that they are deceiued many times who from the relation of others doe commit to writing the sayings and doings of people that liued farre from them then to blot the innocent life of an excellent Pope with a filthie spot of iniustice and rebellion For albeit it bee true that according to his spirituall authoritie ouer all hee might worthily excommunicate this Emperour yet he might not prohibit that the people being subiect to the Romane Empire should not giue tribute to Cesar or pay their customes to the Emperour so long as he continued Emperour without the manifest breach of the Law of God and of the Doctrine of the Gospell And it is certaine that this Leo although impious continued Cesar vnto his death not deposed from his Empire either by the people or by the Pope Therefore I say that it is false which the Magdeburgers Centuriators doe write that this Pope who was famous both for Doctrine and life was a Traitour to his Country I say also that it is false which Bellarmine propounds in the former example that the Pope did set a Fine or Mulct vpon Leo Isaurus Iconumachus to a part of his Empire for hee practised no mischiefe as appeareth by this storie of Platina neither against the Country nor against the Prince Now followeth the sixth CHAP. XLI
of the old Law to the obseruation of the new But if the aduersaries out of all the figures of the old Law can shape any one like to this for the strengthening of their opinion they shall haue my voice for the bell surely they shall neuer finde mee against them Therefore now let vs see the second example CHAP. XXXVIII THe second saith he is out of 2. Paralip 23. whereas when Athalia had â—yrannously vsurped the Kingdome and maintained the worship of Baal Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and the Souldiers and commanded them to kill Athalia and in her place did chuse Ioas King Now that the high Priest did not counsell but command it appeareth by those words 4 Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all which Ioiada the Priest commanded them also by these words 2. Paralip 23. But Ioiada the oigh Priest going out to the Centurions and Captaines of the Army said vnto them Bring her out meaning Athalia the Queene without the doores of the Temple and let her be slaine without by the sword And that the cause of this deposition and execution of Athalia was not only her tyrannie but also for that she maintained the worship of Baal is plaine out of those words which follow immediately after her death Therefore saith the Scripture all the people went into the house of Baal and destroied it and brake down the Altars and Images thereof They slew also Mathan the Priest of Baal Surely I doe not know what mooued Bellarmine to thrust vpon vs this example so remote and farre off from the matter and controuersie vnlesse because hee had obserued that it was propounded by others before him fearing peraduenture lest if he had omitted it hee should be accused by some emulous aduersaries of negligence and preuarication to Pope Sixtus V. who being beyond all measure imperious and haughty and not greatly fauouring the societie of the Iesuites determined to reduce that whole Order to a straighter rule and habit of life which should bee distinguished from the Secular Priests in colour forme or some other outward marke Therefore I doe muse with my selfe how they obtained of him that Bull that they might occupie the perpetuall Dictature of the Vniuersitie of Pontimussa that is that they should for euer bee Rectors or Presidents against the forme and statutes of that foundation made by Gregorie the XIII There be that thinke that the Bull was supposititious that is deuised and counterfait Surely although it were true and granted by Sixtus yet it ought not to bee of force because it was obtained presently after his creation at which time whatsoeuer the Popes doe grant is iudged not so much to be obtained of them as to be extorted from them But to the matter That the example touching Ioiada and Athalia belong nothing to this disputation it appeareth by this that all our controuersie standeth in this Whether the Pope bee endued with so great authority ouer lawfull Kings and Princes Secular that hee may for certaine causes cast them downe from their Throne and depriue them of the right of their Kingdome and anoint and inaugurate others in their places But the example of Athalia is of a woman which held the Kingdome by no right but by most cruell and sauage tyrannie by force and villanie and by the bloudy murder of the Kings house who stood therefore in that case that shee might iustly be slaine of any priuate person without the commandement of the Priest Ioiada But for that such a matter seemed dangerous to attempt and hard to compasse against her who was mother to Ochozias the King deceased therefore there was great neede of the counsell and helpe of Ioiada the high Priest or surely of some other who likewise either by the greatnesse of his authoritie or the opinion of holinesse might assemble and euen stirre vp the Souldiers and the people to vndertake so noble and worthy an action And that this was done not so much by the commandement as aduice of Ioiada it is plaine by that which is said Ioiada the high Priest sent and taking to him the Centurions and Souldiers caused them to bee brought into him into the Temple of the Lord and hee strooke a Couenant with them And that the Interpreters doe note in that place but the words iubere or praecipere are wont to be spoken of euery man who hath the chiefe place in a Faction or Societie Therefore there is nothing found in this example which hath any the least similitude or agreement with the assertion which is vndertaken by the aduersaries to prooue The assertion is that lawfull Princes that is to say they who obtaine Kingdomes and Principalities by right either of Election or Succession may for certaine causes be deposed from their gouernement by the Pope And then what doth it helpe for the proofe of this proposition to propound an example of a Tyrant or the killing of a Tyrant Doe they thinke that there is no difference betweene the true Lords and lawfull possessors and the spoilers and inuaders of possessions which belong not to them Now whether there were or no any other cause or reason to depose and slay her besides her tyrannie it maketh no matter it is sufficient that she was a Tyrant and a violent vsurper of the Kingdome insomuch as there was of her part no hindrance nor barre in Law but that she might be cast headlong out of the seat and bee slaine by any of the people Which cannot in like manner be said of a lawfull King whose person although it be wicked the Law of a kingdome and the authoritie of rule ought alwaies to protect and defend from all iniurie and humane punishment as wee haue prooued otherwhere out of the writings of the holy Fathers Now the third followeth CHAP. XXXIX THe third example saith hee is of S Ambrose who being Bishop of Millan and by that the spirituall Pastor and Father of Theodosius the Emperour who ordinarily did reside at Millan did first excommunicate him for the slaughter which by his commandement was done at Thessalonica secondly hee enioined him to make a Law that the sentence giuen of the slaughter and of the publication of goods of them who were slaine should not stand good till after thirty daies from the pronouncing of the sentence to the end that if hee had through anger and precipitation of minde commanded any thing hee might reuoke it within the space of so many daies But Ambrose could not excommunicate Theodosius for that slaughter vnlesse hee had first vnderstood and iudged of that cause although it were Criminall and belonged to an externall Court but hee could not vnderstand and iudge a cause of that nature vnlesse also he had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall Court. Besides to constraine the Emperour to make a ciuill Law and to prescribe vnto him a forme of a Law doth it not manifestly declare that a Bishop sometimes doth