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
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
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
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
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
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
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
〈◊〉 for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus forced the Queene to depart out of Illiricum and to pay a great yeerely tribute Will any man heere say that the â—eâ—iaâ—ites Troianes Illyrians were vanquished and repressed by the Leuite Menclaus or Coruncanus now dead and not rather by them who for their sakes tooke armes and punished the enemies In like manner will any say it is the ecclesiastike Common-wealth which bridles and reduceth into order the temporall playing vpon them with much iniurious and insolent demeanour and not rather an other temporall state which enters in armes for the sake of the Ecclesiastike republique and without whose helpe the Church her selfe and all her Orders would lie troden and trampled vnder foote What if there bee no temporall state which will or dare contest with this state which is enemie to the Ecclesiastike common-wealth by what meanes then will she reuenge herselfe To vse few wordes although we grant them their comparison and conclusion there can nothing bee made of it but that the Pope hath such a power to dispose of temporall matters of Christians and to depose Princes as either the King of France is knowen to haue ouer the English Spaniards or other neighbour people who doe him wrong or any of these vpon the State and Kings of France if they haue offended them which power in what manner and of what proportion it is can onely be determined and decided by the sword CHAP. XIX THese although they may suffice for the refuting of the second reason yet least in these writings of this most learned man I should passe ouer any thing which because it is either vntouched or negligently handled might beget any error or cast any scruple into the Reader it is a matter worth the paines to examine and sift what that might be which for the strengthning of his reason he brings out of S. Bernard in the bookes de Consid. ad Eugen Bernard indeed aduiseth that the materiall sword is to be exercised by the souldiers hand at the becke of the Priest and commandement of the Emperour which we surely confesse for warres both are vndertaken more iustly and discharged more happily when the Ecclesiasticall holines doth agree conspire with kingly authoritie But we must note he attributeth only to the Priest a Becke that is the consent and desire to wage warre but to the Emperour the commandement and authoritie Whereby it is euident that hee speaketh in no other respect that the Materiall sword belongeth to the Church then for that in a Christian estate although the authoritie and command for warre be in the power of Emperours Kings and Princes yet warres are with more iustice waged where the consent of the Ecclesiastike power comes in which being guided by the spirit of God can more sharpely and truly iudge between right and wrong godly or vngodly But what if the Emperour will not draw his sword at the becke of the Priest nay what if he shall draw it against the Priests beck and assent doth S. Bernard in this case giue to the Priest any temporall power ouer the Emperour for this is it which we seeke in this place and whereon our whole disputation turneth surely none at all But he rather teacheth that none belongeth to him whenas he saith that the Materiall sword by which sword the soueraigne power temporall is signified may not bee exercised by the Church but onely by the hand of the souldier and commandement of the Emperour Which same point Gratianus deliuers more plainly being almost S. Bernards equall When Peter saith he who was first of all the Apostles chosen by the Lord did vse the materiall word that he might defend his Master from the iniurie of the Iewes he heard Turne thy sword into the seabbard for euery one who takes the sword shall perish by the sword as if it had beene told him openly Hitherto it was lawfull for the and thy Predecessors to prosequâ—te the enemies of God with the temporall sword heereafter for an example of Patience turne thy sword that is hitherto granted to thee into the scabbard and yet exercise the spirituall sword which is the word of God in the kiling of thy former life for euery one besides him or his authoritie who vseth lawfull power who as the Apostle saith beareth not the sword without cause to whom also euery soule ought to be subiect I say euery one who without such a warrant receiueth the sword shall perish by the sword If these of Bernard and Gratian bee true it can by no meanes be that the Pope should with any right exercise temporall power vpon the Emperour or other secular Princes for it cannot be exercised but by the sword and the sword cannot be by the souldier drawen but by their commandement and so this temporall power would prooue vtterly vaine and vnprofitable in the person of the Pope when as the execution thereof should bee denied him Vnlesse some Emperour perchance should be besotted with so fatall a fatuitie that he would command the souldiers to beare armes against himselfe or should be indued with so great sanctitie and iustice that he doe by his edict signifie that they should not spare himselfe if hee should offend Hitherto belongs that which S. Ambrose writeth The law saith he forbiddeth not to strike and therefore peraduenture Christ said to Peter offering two swordes It is enough as though it were lawfull vntill the Gospell that there might be in the Law an instruction of equitie in the Gospell perfection of goodnesse Besides we must vnderstand that that place of the Gospell touching two swords which they obiect vnto vs is not necessarily to be vnderstood of the Temporall and Spirituall swords yea that it is far more agreeable to the speech of our Sauior in that place that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall sword and the sword of the Passion as Amb. expoundeth it learnedly and holily in that place For Christ in that last speech with the Disciples before his Passion admonished them that they should be sent to preach the Gospell of a few other manner of conditions after his death came they should receiue this commandement Euntes in Mundum vniuersum predicate Euangelium vniuersae Creaturae then before they had beene sent by him when as yet he liued with them in the earth as if he had said hitherto I haue so sent you as you haue needed neither bagge nor girdle nor shooes but heereafter I will send you to preach the Gospell and you will haue neede of a bagge and a scrip to wit of Care and Patience and also of the two swords the Spirituall and that of the Passion whereof it is said A sword shall pierce thy soule for there is a Spirituall sword saith Ambrose in that place that thou shouldest sell thy patrimony purchase the word whereby the naked inward reines of the soule are cloathed and furnished There is also a sword of
Iustinian 82. made in fauour of the Clergie men That Clergie men should first bee conuented before their owne Bishops and afterwards before Ciuill Iudges Therefore the Ciuill Iurisdiction of secular Iudges ouer the Clergie is not weakened by this Canon but rather confirmed Likewise in the Councell of Agatha vnder King Alaricke Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same decreed Can. 32 That no Clergie man should presume to molest any man before a secular Iudge if the Bishop did not giue him licence The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decreâ—um not without very foule dealing both changing the reading and wresting the sense for whereas the Councell had said Clericus ne quenquam praesumat c. that he hath drawne to his owne opinion depraued in this manner Clericum nullus praesumat apud sâ—cularem Iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare that is Let no man presume to molest a Clergie man before a Secular Iudge c. That the prohibition may include the Laâ—cks also that they should not conuent a Clergy man before a Secular Iudge whereas it is made only for Clergie men without any mention at all of the Laitie Besides the second part of that Canon doth manifestly shew that the Councell is thus farre offended with the Laickes which draw the Clergie before Secular Iudgements and propoundeth Ecclesiasticall punishments against them if so bee they shall doe it wrongfully of a purpose to vex and molest them For it followeth in the same Canon But if any Secular man shall attempt wrongfully to torment and vex the Church and Clergie men by moouing of sutes before Secular Iudges and shall be conuicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church and from the Communion of the Catholikes vnlesse hee shall worthily repent but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Councell but also of the Epistle of Pope Marcellinus in eadem Cauâ— quaest Can 3. and for Clericus nullum hath written Clericus nullus that it is no maruell that the Canonists who did only reade the gatherings of Gratianus being deceiued by this false reading haue fallen into this errour which we now repichend But it is a maruell that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus and not rather the true and naturall section of the Authors themselues in his Controucisies Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 28. But in the first Councell of Matiscum which was held vnder King Guâ—tramnus An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner That no Clericke presume in what place soeuer to accuse any other brother of the Clergie or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular Iudge but let all matters of the Clergie be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop or Priest or Arch deacon And in the third Councell of Toletum which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the raigne of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus The continuall misgouernment and accustomed presumption of libertie hath so farre opened the way to vnlawfull attempts that Clerickes leauing their Bishops doe draw their fellow Clerkes to publike iudgements Therefore wee ordaine that the like presumption be attempted no more If any shall presume to doe it let him lose his cause and be banished from the Communion These are the solemne and almost the sole decrees of the Canons whereon they ground their errour who falsely supposed that Councels could or in fact did exempt the Clergie from the power of the Laitie whom the Canons themselues notwithstanding doe so euidentlie conuince that wee neede not bring any thing else besides them for to represse that conceit of theirs And these matters haue beene thus discoursed by mee not with that minde and intent to rippe vp the priuileges of the Clergie or because I either enuie that they enioy them or wish that they were taken from them They who know mee know very well in what account I haue euer had and haue Ecclesiasticall persons I doe honour the Priests of God as my parents and esteeme them worthy all honour but as an humble childe I aduise them that they be not vnthankfull nor disdaine their benefactors from whom they haue receiued so many priuileges They are bound to reuerence and honour their temporall Princes as their Patrons and Protectors and procurers of their libertie and not as many of them at this day vse to denie that they are beholding to Princes for those fauours but to ascribe all their liberties and exemptions and immunities to Pontificiall and Canonicall Constitutions which is the most vnthankfull part which can proceede from vnthankfull mindes For what temporall libertie soeuer they haue they haue receiued the same not from the Popes but from secular Princes nor from the Canons but from the Lawes CHAP. XXXIII I Will say more and I will speake the truth although peraduenture it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seeme hatefull which are neuer so little against their humour and disposition Therefore I will speake and I will speake a great word which peraduenture either no man hitherto hath remembred or if any haue hee hath not at the least put any in minde as hee ought whom it concerned to know the same And that is that the Clergie thorow the whole world of what order or degree soeuer they be are not to this day in any manner exempt and freede from the temporall authoritie of secular Princes in whose Kingdomes and countries they liue but are subiect to them in no other manner then other Citizens in all things which belong to ciuill and temporall administration and iurisdiction and that the same Princes haue power of life and death ouer them as well as ouer their other subiects and therefore that the Prince I speake of him who acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall affaires may either of his clemencie forgiue or punish according to the Law a Clergie man committing any fault whatsoeuer so the fault bee not meerely Ecclesiasticall This although it seeme hard and halfe a paradoxe to them who being possessed with the errour of the contrarie opinion doe thinke that they liue within the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Pope only and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of humane lawes besides notwithstanding I shall bring to passe in few words that they may plainly vnderstand that there is nothing more true then this proposition of mine so as they be onely willing to open their eares to â—eare the true reason thereof with indifferencie The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we haue set downe and prooued before out of the iudgement of the Diuines of the best note and shall presently bee demonstrated by necessary and euident conclusion drawne from thence First of all therefore this is set downe and granted and also confirmed with most firme reasons and testmonies that all both Clerickes and Laickes were in the power and authoritie of Kings and Emperours so
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
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
GVIL BARCLAII J. C. OF THE AVTHORITIE OF THE POPE WHETHER AND HOW FARRE FORTH he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber posthumus AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD for VVilliam Aspley 1611. TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD CLEMENT the 8. Pope W. Barclay wisheth health IF Rome from Peter to this day had seene such Bishops as your Holinesse is most High Father and Prelate of Christians there had been no place for this Question at this time Your Moderation and Gentlenesse answerable to your Name either had not opened any gap to this Busines or had barred the same by some graue Prouision that it should not be opened I haue here discussed the Question touching the Temporall authoritie of your See ouer Kings and Princes which hauing been canuassed with so great Troubles and so much Blood hath as oft afflicted the Church as the Princes themselues I haue also dedicated the same to you lest I might seeme either to haue shunned your Iudgement or to haue managed rather the Cause of the Kings then of the Church If I haue not pleased euery mans taste I desire them to consider That no Medicine brings Health without bitternesse It is peraduenture an odious argument to such as be scrupulous or malitious to peruert my sense and meaning which not withstanding most Holy Father I haue vndertaken partly out of the loue of the Truth partly also for that I haue been of opinion that this Authoritic is the fountaine of all those tempests wherewith Heresie tosseth your ship at this day Pope Iulius the 2. being alienated with a sudden vnkindnes did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France but also depriued Iohn King of Nauarre of his kingdome because hee assisted the French And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France but the Nauarrois hearing the Spaniard of one side and being excluded on the other side by the Mountaines of Pyrene from the helpe of France was not able to make his part good against the furie of Rome and the ambition of Spaine Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdome he retired into France where he had a large and ancient Patrimonie In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled and the Heires of Iohn King of Nauarre inflamed with their priuate hatred did very soone passe to that side which bandied against the See of Rome Therefore came Heresie first to be seattered thorow France by the partialitie of those Princes which through the fiaming fire and after through warres hath continued to this day As for Henrie the 8 King of England who doubteth that he departed not so much from the Religion as from the Pope out of his Hatred against the very same Authoritie Clemens the 7. had denounced Henrie depriued of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms and he againe conceiued an anger which peraduenture was not vniust of his part but blinde and intemperate He opened England to Heretikes by the occasion of this schisme who afterwards growing strong vnder Edward the 6 destroyed the ancient Religion Againe Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England hauing held out vnder Iames the 5 at length was attainted in the beginning of Maries raigne and presently after infected when the poison had gathered further strength So what Heresie or Heretiques soeuer are in France and Britannie at this day which is their onlie strong hold was conceiued and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporall Authothoritie as a pestilent egge Behold most holy Father how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command which like Scianus his Horse hath euer cast his Masters to the ground Therefore haue I vndertaken this worke out of my affection to Religion and Truth not to the Princes and of a sincere and humble minde haue presented the same to you the Chiefe Pastour to whom it appertaineth to iudge of leper and leper If there be any thing in these writings which you shall thinke good and profitable I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweete remembrance of so great a Witnesse But if allowing my affection yet you shall not allow my Iudgement it shall be to posteritie an argument of your Moderation that vnder you the simple libertie of Disputation hath not been preiudiciall to any Let this be an argument of your Moderation but neuer of my Obstinacie For whatsoeuer is in this businesse I leaue it to your Censure that in this booke I may seeme not so much to haue deliuered what I thinke as to haue enquired of your Holinesse what I ought to thinke Fare you well The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholike disposition to the See of Rome and his sinceritie in the handling of this question The opinion of the Diuines and Canonists touching the Popes authoritie in temporall matters and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers and a taxation of Bozius his sophistrie touching the same Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporall iurisdiction but rather inioyned Obedience to be giuen euen to Heathen Princes and a comparison betweene the ambition and vsurpation of the later Popes and humilitie of the ancient Chap. 4. That the later Popes serued themselues of two aduantages to draw to themselues this vast authoritie Temporall ouer Princes viz. partly through the great reuerence which was borne to the See of Rome partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication Chap. 5. That it cannot be proued by any authoritie either Diuine or Humane that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporall authoritie ouer any Christian Princes Chap. 6. That no instance can be giuen of any Popes of higher times that any such authoritie was vsurped and practised by them and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times in regard of the modestie and pietie of the former Chap. 7. An answere made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people coerce and chastise the olde Emperors and Kings and therefore forbare them more then now she neede to doe Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage to execute any lawfull power vpon euill Princes but she forbare to doe it in regard she knew not any such power ouer them Chap. 9. That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine that Henrie the 4. Emperour and other Christian Princes vpon whom the Popes haue practised their pretended temporall authoritie might be dealt withall more securely then the former Princes Chap. 10. The censure of the worthie Bishop Frisingens vpon the course which Gregorie the 7. tooke against Henrie the 4. Emperour and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church and vnfortunate to the Pope himselfe Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and
conniuencie of the ancient Popes and the vanitie thereof discouered Chap. 12. That the Pope hath no authoritie not so much as indirectly ouer Christian Princes in temporall matters proued both by the speciall prerogatiues of an absolute Prince and also by the grounds of the Catholikes and the inconueniencies insuing of the admittance thereof Chap. 13. He vndertakes Bellarmine his proofes propounds his first maine reason with the Media whereby Bellarmine inforceth the same Chap. 14. He taketh away the ground which Bellarmine laid for the strengthening of his first Proposition and layeth open the lightnes and vanitie thereof Chap. 15. He amplifieth the answere to the last ground laid by Bellarmine and explaneth in what termes of Relation or Subordination the Powers both Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe stand Secondly he sheweth that Clergie persons are as well and fully to be reputed the subiects of Temporall Princes as Lay men are Thirdly that the Clergie first receiued their Priuiledges from the fauour of Princes and that the Pope himselfe as successor of Peter must necessarily bee subiect to a Temporall Prince but that hee is a Temporall Prince in Italie himselfe which State also he receiued at the first by the Bountie of Temporall Princes Chap. 16. He detecteth a plaine fallacie in a reason of Bellarmines which in Schooles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sheweth at large that Temporall Princes haue submitted themselues to the Popes as their Spiritual Fathers but not so absolutely but that they euer reserued their Ciuill authoritie firme and vntouched to themselues Chap. 17. He answereth Bellarmines second reason and prooueth that this vnlimited power of disposing the Temporalties of Princes is neither belonging nor necessarie for the Church and that the Church florished more the first three hundred yeeres without the same authoritie then it hath done since certaine later Popes vsurped the same Chap. 18. He discusseth more at large the sense of Bellarmine his latter argument to proue the Popes soueraigntie ouer Kings in Temporalties and bewraies the inconsequence and vanitie thereof Chap. 19. He discusseth a passage in S. Bernard touching the Materiall sword and the words of Christ Ecce duo glâ—dij and concludeth that the Temporall sword is neither proper to the Pope nor subiect to the Spirituall Chap. 20. He encountreth Bellarmine his third reason and the proâ—â—es of the same Wherein he excepts especially against this Proposition of Bellarmine that it is as dangerous to chuse a Heathen Prince as not to depose him that is not a Christian but the Elench or fallacie of the whole argument he plainly discouereth Chap. 21. He insisteth further on the point Whether Christians ought to suffer ouer them a King that is not a Christian. The text of the 1. Cor. 6. is discussed Of going to law vnder infidell Princes or Iudges and Bellarmine his fraud and captiousnes discouered in abusing that place to serue his turne Secondly a place of Thomas Aquinas examined touching the point of taking from Heathen Princes their Right Thirdly that it was not want of strength but meere Religion and Conscience that kept the Primitiue Church in obedience by Bellarmines own grounds Chap. 22. He answereth Bellarmines second maine Reason taxeth the same both for matter in truth and forme in Logick and giues a right supplie to the deficiencie of the same by which the force of the same reason is taken away Chap. 23. He taketh in hand Bellarmines third argument which is drawne from a comparison of the bond of Mariage with the bond of the Obedience due from the subiect to the Prince and both shewes how weake it is in it selfe and how strong against him that brings it Chap. 24. He examineth a fourth Reason of Bellarmines taken from the forme of an Oath which Princes are supposed to take when they were receiued into the Church and sheweth that nothing can be made thereof to proue Bellarmines assertion for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Christian Princes Chap. 25. He examineth the last reason of Bellarmine grounded on the words of Christ to Peter Pasce oues meas the which reason from these words if it haue any edge at all he turneth the same backe vpon Bellarmine himselfe Chap. 26. He prooueth that Bellarmine is deceiued or doth deceiue of purpose in his reason drawne from the comparison of the Pope as a shepheard and an heretike Prince as a wolfe 2. What is the dutie of the shepheard in case the Prince doe of a sheepe become a wolfe Chap. 27. He debateth the power of the Pope to dispense what is the nature of those lawes wherewith the Pope may dispense But that he hath no colour to dispense with the obedience of a subiect to his Prince The madnesse of the Canonists that giue too vast a fulnes of power to the Pope Chap. 28. The Examination of a Rescript of Pope Innocent the third which hath these words Not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate Which words many haue laboured to reconcile but haue missed Chap. 29. But the Author giues the resolution excusing the Popes meaning and blaming the words to answere the Canonists Chap. 30. That the Pope although he might dispense with the oath of a Subiect yet can he not dispense with his Obedience to his Prince to which he is bound by the law of God and Nature which are greater then his Oath 2. The dangerous consequence to all Christian Princes by this power of the Pope called Indirect if he should haue it 3. What the People ought to answere the Pope or his Ministers in case they should bee by them solicited against their lawfull Prince Chap. 31. The error of the later Popes in taking this high and headlong course to depose Princes what ill blood it hath bred in the Church proued by miserable experience in Germanie France England and hath brought the See of Rome both into hatred and contempt with all Christian Princes Chap. 32. That if the Prince play the wilde Ramme the Pope may correct him but as a spirituall Pastor onely by spirituall meanes 2. That neither the Prince can auoide or decline the Popes iudgement in cases Spirituall nor any Clergie person the Kings in cases Temporall 3. That the Clergie receiued those Exemptions and Immunities which at this day they enioy through all Christendome not from the Pope nor from Canons of Councels but by the bountie and indulgencie of secular Princes 4. The explanation of the Canons of certaine famous Councels which the aduersaries alleage in their behalfe and yet vpon the matter make rather against them 5. The notorious corruption practised by Gratianus in peruerting the words of two seuerall Canons flat against the Originall which corruption also Bellarmine very strangely followeth because it seemeth to make to his purpose Chap. 33. He propoundeth and proueth a paradoxe of his owne That all the Clergie men in the world of what degree or ranke soeuer are
directly any temporall power but onely Spirituall but that by reason of the Spirituall hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that verie great to dispose of the Temporalities of all Christians And so looke what they doe allow the Pope by a direct course the same doe these men giue him by an oblique and indirect meanes so as the meanes onely is diuers but the effect is the same For my part when I consider of this question I finde that neither of their opinions as touching the temporall power hath any certaine ground and yet if they be compared together that the Canonistes opinion may more easily be maintained then the Diuines especially seeing it is not contrary to the order of nature according to which a man by his right exerciseth authoritie granted vnto him ouer others and therefore it containes nothing vnpossible But the opinion of the Diuines as it is propounded by their owne side ouerturnes the naturall course of things which willeth that no man vse any power or authoritie ouer others which is neither by name granted to him nor is any whit necessary to the effecting of those things which are committed to his trust Therefore these Diuines do indeed very well refute the opinion of the Canonists but for all that with their leaue they thinke not a whit the better themselues whereby a man may see how much more easie it is to finde an vntruth in other mens writings then to defend a truth in his owne There is also euen amongst themselues a contention touching this point For many of them haue ioined themselues with the Canonists either for that they are deceiued with a shew of truth or that bearing too much and that a very blind affection to Peters Sea which indeed is woorthy all honour they would also grace it with this title of Power and Dignitie or being obliged by some speciciall fauors of the Popes haue by this endeuor of thankfulnes desired to draw their good opinions close to themselues I will not say to gaine them through this vnreasonable flattery of theirs And amongst these is one who being lately sprung out of the Congregation of the Oratrie hath stept foorth as a sharpe Abettour for the Canonists aboue other men Whom therfore a learned man a famous preacher as any is amongst the Iesuâ—tes when I asked him what he thought of this opinion of Bozius hee called him a Popes parasite For in his books he doth earnestly maintaine That all Kingly power and authoritie and Lordship of al things which are in earth are giuen to the Bishop of Rome by the Law of God and that what power soeuer whersoeuer in the world temporall Kings and Princes aswell beleeuing as vnbeleeuing haue doth wholly depend of the Pope and so farre as concernes temporall execution is deriued from him to them So that he as the Lord of the whole world may giue and take kingdomes and principalities to whom and where he will although no man knowes why he doth so And therefore saith he he might adiudge and bequeath the West Indies of Castile and the East Indies of Portingall although all men vnderstand not the coherence of the reason whereby they were disposed as wee said before And therefore being emboldned with a confidence of maintaining this opinion he doth greeuously accuse many excellent Diuines amongst whom is that worthy man Bellarmine who can neuer woorthily be commended cals them new Diuines affirmeth That they teach matters that be notoriously false and contrarie to all truth because they say that Christ as man was not a temporall king neither had any temporall dominion in earth nor exercised any kingly power for by these assertions the principall foundations of Bozius his dotages are ouerthrowen when as these great Diuines affirme that they are most true and confirmed by the owne testimonie of our Sauiour The Foxes saith he haue holes and the birds of heauen nests but the Sonne of man hath no where to lay his head Where then is his kingdome where is his Temporall dominion who can conceiue and imagine that there is a king or a Lord who hath neither kingdome nor Lordship in the vniuersall world We know that Christ as he is the Sonne of God is King of glorie the King of Kings the Lord of heauen and earth and of all things raigning euerlastingly together with the Father the holy Spirit But what is this to a Temporall kingdome What is this to a crowne and scepter of a temporall Maiestie Certainly I haue perused all that Bozius hath deliuered to this purpose but I haue not found any sound reason for the confirming of his purpose nothing that was not corrupted with the mixture of fallaries and sophistication nothing grounded vpon ancient and approoued authorities nothing but depraued with a glosse of a deuised interpretation Before this time Henricus Segutianus Cardinall of Hostia was intangled with the same errour whose new and strange opinion at that time is thought within a while after to haue inflamed beyond all measure as it were with new firebrands of ambition Boniface the 8. a man exceeding desirous of glorie But the case is at this time very well altered because that opinion of Hostiensis which afterwards the Canonists followed Bozius now embraceth is vpon very grounded reason condemned by certaine Diuines And also for that the Church of God hath at this day such a chiefe Bishop I meane Clement the eight who sheweth himselfe to the world so excellent and admirable not onely in pietie learning but also in humility iustice charitie and other vertues worthy so great a Pastor that we need not feare least such a Bishop should bee so stirred and infected with a vaine opinion which is vnderpropped onely with fooleries and snares of words that hee should challenge to himselfe any thing which of due belonged not vnto him Neither had Bozius offered so rash assertions to so great a Bishop but that impudencie dare doe anything It were time ill spent to touch seuerally vpon all his errors and fopperies Onely least I should seeme for mine owne pleasure onely to haue found fault with the man I will lay before you one instance of his foolish and quirking dealing that the Reader may iudge of the beast by his Loose CHAP. II. FIrst of all we must vnderstand that those two powers whereby the world is kept in order I meane the Ecclesiasticall and the Ciuill are so by the law of God distinguished and separated that although they bee both of God each of them being included in his bounds can not by any right enter vpon the borders of the other and neither haue power ouer the other as S. Bernard truely and sweetly teacheth in his first booke de Consider ad Eugenium and amongst the later Diuines Iohn Driedo And the woorthy Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to the Emperour Constantine an Arrian doth euidently declare the same difference of
to the other although both of them may concurre in the same person For the same person may bee both a temporall Prince and a Bishop but neither as a Pope can hee chalenge to himselfe the actions offices dignities and other rights of Temporall things nor as a Prince of Spirituall If therefore these powers be ioyned together neither in dignities offices nor actions let Bozius tell vs wherein they are ioyned If he say in that because one is subordinate and subiect to the other that is it which we deny and which if it were true it would follow necessarily that those powers are distinguished neither in dignities nor offices but onely in actions and so this opinion of Pope Nicolaus should bee false for dignitie and office which is in the Person subordinated cannot but be in the Person which doth subordinate seeing it is deriued from him into the Person subordinated Hence it is that the Prince takes himselfe to be wronged while his Ministers are hindred in the execution of their offices and the Pope thinketh himselfe and his Sea Apostolike to be contemned if any Contempt be offered to the authoritie of his Legate sent by him But all things and Persons are proclaimed to be free and not subiect vnlesse the contrary be prooued And if these things be so it is very ridiculous and a meere fancie of Bozius his braine that he saies how it appeares by the former speeches of Pope Nicolaus That hee doth not affirme the Lay power to be disioyned from the Spirituall so as a Person Ecclesiasticall may not haue it but that a temporall Person may not haue an Ecclesiasticall For where can this appeare seeing in that letter there is not one word to be seene whereby that may be gathered in any probabilitie And hitherto haue I said enough of this Bozius his error And I am perswaded that no man is so madde that in the determination of this businesse touching the distinction of these powers will not giue credit rather to Hosius then to Bozius CHAP. III. I Would here annex other examples of Bozius his error but that I know that this opinion which he endeuoureth to reuiue being now laid asleep and almost extinguished seemeth in these daies to the learned so absurd and that it is refuted and ouerthrowen with so many and so cleere reasons that now a man need not feare least any be inueigled and ouertaken therewith For first it is certaine that neither Bozius nor al his abetors although they weare wrest the sacred writings and works of the fathers neuer so much shall euer be able to produce any certaine testimony whereby that same temporall iurisdiction and power of the Pope which they dreame on ouer Princes and people of the whole world may be plainly confirmed Nay but not so much as any token or print of any such temporall power deliuered by hand from the Apostles and their successors can be found from the passion of Christ for seauen hundred nay I may say for a thousand yeeres For which cause the most learned Bellarmine in the refutation of this opinion doth very wittily and shortly vse this strange reason If it were so saith he that the Pope be temporall Lord of the whole world that should plainly appeare by the Scriptures or surely out of the tradition of the Apostles Out of the Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keies of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keies of the kingdome of the earth there is no mention and the aduersaries bring forth no tradition of the Apostles The which matters and with all the great diuision about this matter between the Diuines and the Canonists and of each of them one with another maketh that this question of the temporal power of the Pope seemeth very doubtfull and vncertaine and wholly to consist without any ground in the opinion and conceipt of men and therefore that the truth thereof is to be searched and sisted out by the light of reason sharpnesse of arguments and that it is no matter of faith as they speake to thinke of it either one way or other for that those things which are matters of faith are to be held of all men after one manner But for mine owne part although I doe with heart and mouth professe that the chiefe Bishop and prelate of the city of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ the lawfull successor of S. Peter yea the vniuersall and supreme pastor of the Church is indued with spirituall power ouer all christian Kings and Monarchs and that he hath and may exercise ouer them the power to bind and loose which the Scripture doth witnesse that it was giuen to the Apostle Peter ouer all soules yet notwithstanding I am not therefore perswaded that I should alike beleeue that he comprehendeth secular Kings and Princes with in his temporall iurisdiction or when they doe offend against God or Men or otherwise abuse their office that he may in any sort abrogate their gouernment and take their Scepters away and bestow them on others or indeed in a word that he hath any right or iurisdiction temporall ouer any lay-persons of what condition or order and ranke so euer they be vnlesse he shall purchase the same by Ciuill and lawfull meanes For as much as I haue obserued that the opinion which affirmeth the same hath beene assaied indeed and attempted by diuers but hitherto could neuer be prooued of any sufficient and strong reason and for the contrarie opinion much more weightie and more certaine reasons may be brought For my part in regard of the zeale I beare to the Sea Apostolike I could wish with all my heart that it might be prooued by certaine and vndoubted arguments that this right belongs vnto it being very ready to encline to that part to which the weightier reason and authority of truth do swaie But now let vs come nearer to the disputation it selfe That it is euidently false that the Pope hath authority and rule ouer Kings and Princes it is certaine euen by this that it were an absurd thing and vniust to say that heathen Princes are receiued by the Church in harder and worser termes then other particular men of the commons whosoeuer or that the Pope hath at this day greater power ciuill ouer christian Princes then in times past S. Peter the rest of the Apostles had ouer euery priuate man that was a child of the Church but they in those times had neuer any right or power temporall ouer christian lay-persons therefore neither hath the Pope now a daies any temporall power ouer secular Princes The assumption is prooned by this because it is most certaine that in the time of the Apostles the Ecclesiasticall power was wholy seuered from the ciuill I doe not hereweigh Bozius fooleries and that this ciuill power was wholly in the hands of heathen Princes out of the Church In somuch as the Apostles themselues were within the
is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
heart those wordes doe testifie which he writeth more expresly about the end of that Epistle of his necessarie subiection and obedience toward the Emperour Mauricius had made a law which though it were vniust and preiudiciall to the libertie of the Church yet Gregorie receiuing a Commandement from the Emperour to publish it did send it accordingly into diuers countries to be proclaimed Therfore thus he concludes that Epistle I being subiect to the Commandement haue caused the same law to bee sent abroad into diuers parts of the world and because the same law is no whit pleasing to Almightie God behold I haue signified so much to my honorable Lordes by this letter of my suggestion Therefore in both respects I haue discharged my dutie in that I haue both performed my Obedience to the Emperour and haue not concealed that which I thought on Gods behalfe O diuine Prelate and speech to be continually remembred to all succeeding Bishops of all ages But ô God! whether is that gentle and humble confession banished out of our world to which this threatning and insolent speech against Kings and Emperors hath by little and little succeeded We being placed in the supreme throne of iustice possessing the supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the vniuersall earth ouer all Peoples Countries Nations which is committed to vs not by humane but by diuine ordinance doe declare will command c. which word it is plaine euen by this that they are false and vaine because the Pope hath neither spirituall nor temporall power ouer vnbeleeuing Princes and People as Bellarmine with very good reason sheweth in his bookes of the Bishop of Rome These and such like fashions as these who will they not driue into amazement and wonder at so great a change of the Popes state and gouernment or doe they not giue to all men iust cause to enquire wherefore the former Popes in the most flowrishing age of the Church acknowledged themselues to be the seruants subiects and vassals of Princes and obeied their authority in temporall matters when as they notwithstanding were ouer them in spirituall and our later Popes professe themselues to be Lords of all Kings Princes Countries and Nations In very truth this matter doth giue no small occasion to many learned men and good Catholikes to doubt of the iustnesse of this change yea indeed to beleeue that a temporall gouernement so great and so absolute had his beginning in the persons of Popes not from God omnipotent but from the impotent ambition of certaine men and that it was not in the beginning conferred from heauen vpon Peter by the Lord Christ but was vsurped by certaine successors of Peter many ages after according to the fashion of the world that is certaine Popes hauing a massed huge store of wealth and riches and fostering their blind ambition and sury by little and little challenged that greatnesse to themselues whereby they laboured and stroue that it might be lawfull for them to take away and bestow what soeuer Kingdomes and Principalities are in the world Sure they were men and as other men are sometimes too greedy of vanity as was he who only for the malice he bare against Philip the Faire King of France set forth a decretall constitution which brought foorth so many scandalls so many dangers that it deserued foorthwith to be abrogated by Boniface his successor Now the admirable and miserable assentation of certaine flatterers gaue increase and nourishment to that vice in them who by their fond and foolish assertions such as now these Bozian fancies are affirmed that all things were lawfull for the Pope and that by Gods law all things were subiect to him Whereby we may maruaile the lesse if many of them did so far forget their Bishoplike and Apostolike modesty that through a desire to enlarge their power they encroched vpon other mens borders Of whom Gaguinus a learned man and religious taxing by the way an authority so far spread and vsurped as he calls it Therefore so great saith he is their height and state that making small reckoning of Kings they glory that they may doe all things Neither hath any in my time come to the Popedome who hauing once got the place hath not forthwith aduanced his nephewes to great wealth and honor And long before Gaguinus S. Bernard Doth not in these dates ambition more then deuotion weare the thresholds of the Apostles vpon this occasion Platina In this manner dieth that Boniface who endeuoured to strike terror rather then religion into Emperors Kings Princes Nations Peoples who also laboured to giue Kingdomes and to take them away to famish men and to reduce them at his owne pleasure And the same Gaguinus in another place Such an end of his life had Boniface the disdainer of all men who little remembring the precepts of Christ indeuoured to take away and to bestow Kingdomes at his pleasure when as he knew well enough that he stood in his place here in earth whose kingdome was not of this world nor of earthly matters but of heauenly who also had procured the Popedome by subtelty and wicked practise and kept Caelestinus in prison while he liued a most holy man of whom he receiued honor CHAP. IV. NOw I do chiefly find two things which seem to haue giuen vnto the Popes the opportunity to arrogate so great power to themselues The one is the very great honor which as indeed there was reason was giuen to the chiefe Pastor of soules by Princes and christian people and yet ought to be giuen to him and the forestalled and setled opinion of the sanctity of that sea of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul which is conspicuous and excelleth amongst all men in all spirituall honor and authority and in that respect hath been beyond all other most increased and honored with wealth and riches By these meanes all men were very easily perswaded to beleeue that neither the Pope in regard of his holinesse would challenge to himselfe any authority which did not appertaine vnto him and also that it was not lawfull for a christian man in any manner to disobey the Popes commandements Whereby it came to passe that sundry Popes whose mindes were too much addicted to ambition and vaine glory embouldned and hartned through the confidence of this so great reuerence and affection of men towards them drew to themselues this power ouer Kings which was vtterly vnknowen to the first successors of Peter The which also passed the more currant by reason of the preoccupate and now engrafted conceipt of the people and ignorant folke who being possessed of this opinion of holinesse did verily beleeue that the Pope could not erre either in word or deed and also by the writings of certaine cleargy men catholikes and Canonists who either erring through ignorance of the truth or wholly resolued into flattery of their Prince the Pope of whom they did
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
we are to thinke that there is the same reason of the Church to be established and which is established already that the Uine ought â—â—t to be planted and watered before it be pruned but that then that power was giuen to the Church when that of the Prophet was fulfilled Kings shall be thy Nurâ—es with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee shall lickâ— the dust of 〈…〉 that surely is such a toâ— as I do thinke not worth the answering seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knowes what he saith For â—hat were not the rotten members of the Church wont to be cut off euen from her infancie first beginning doth he not know that that spirituall incision which is proper to the Church begaÌ„ euen with the Church her self What say you to Ananias what to the Corinthian were they not cut off by the church If he know not this he is to be thought an ill Diuine a worse Vine-dresser seeing he euen in the very first planting shreds off whatsoeuer is super fluous and vnprofitable in the vine and suffers not the rotten and faultie branches to sticke out of the ground afterwards when it is a litle growenvp he lops and cuts it lest it should be ouercharged with vnprofitable and vnfruitfull stems But if he meane corporall incision he ought to know that the Church hath no skill of bloud I meane that she doth not execute death vpon any vnlesse peraduenture it falles out by miracle as in the person of Ananias and Saphâ—ra But what doth he thinke that the Church was not perfectly established in the times of Ambrose Hierome and Austine Or that it was not sufficiently planted watred that at that time it might be conueniently shred Surely S. Austine in one place affirmes that very few in his time were found that thought euill of Christ. Why then did the Church tolerate Ualens Ualentinianus Heraclitus and others for from Constantine the Great that Prophecie which he alleadgeth was fulfilled But it was not yet time to cut the Lords vineyard A worthy reason sure and to be ranked amongst that followes fooleries which in another place we set downe by themselues Now let vs goe to the maintainers of the indirect power CHAP. XII THese mens opinion I haue set downe aboue in the first and fift chapters which is That the Pope by reason of his spirituall Monarchie hath temporall power indirectly and that soueraigne to dispose of the temporalties of all christians and that he may change kingdomes and take them from one to giue them to another if it be necessary for the health of soules Against which opinion there are so many things that I hould it to be vtterly improbable if not incredible For first of all what is more contrary to it then that the whole christian antiquity euer iudged that Kings are lesse then God only that they haue God only for their iudge that they are subiect to no lawes of man and can be punished or coerced with no temporall punishments and therefore that which the authors of the law said Princeps 〈…〉 est that the Grecians cheefly vnderstand of penall lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Prince offending is not punished None of these things can stand with the opinion of the aduersaries For if it be true that the Pope may dispose of kingdomes and states of secular Princes and take from them their scepters and all manner of dignity it followeth necessarily that the Pope is superior and euen Iudge ouer Kings in temporall matters and besides that all Kings may be subiect to temporall punishments which is directly opposite as may be to the former opinion of the ancient Fathers The necessity of the consequution is plaine by this for that he who iudgeth an other lawfully must of necessity be superior ouer him whom he iudgeth For an equall hath not authority ouer an equall much lesse an inferior ouer a superior and also because the depriuation of a Kingdome euen as the publication of goods is to be reckned amongst temporall punishments and those very greeuous too What I pray you that the Bishops themselues confesse that Kings haue no superior in temporalities They haue and they haue not cannot be both true Therefore it is false that Kings haue no superiour in temporalities if an other may by law take their temporalities from them and giue them to an other For if this be not an act of superiority as I may speake I know not surely what it is to be superior or if to condemne a King vnheard and to punish him as farre as his regall dignity comes to be not to be the Iudge of a King we must confesse that no motion either of a iudgement or of a Iudge hath beene deliuered and lest vs by our Elders For in that they place the difference in the words Directe indirecte that belongs not to the power of iudgeing and to the effect of the iudgement but onely to the manner and way of acquiring so great a power For the Canonists doe say that the Pope hath receiued directly of Christ the temporal dominion of the whole world But these men I meane the Diuines deeme that he receiued such a dominion directly as if you should say by it selfe simply and without consideration of another thing but onely indirectly that is by consequence in regard of that spirituall power which he hath receiued directly from the Lord. Therefore this difference out of these words ought to be referred to the beginning and meane of acquiring a temporall power but not to the force and effect of the same For whether you say makes nothing for the strength and power of the Popes iudgement ouer Kings vnlesse peraduenture some may say that the Pope if he be an ill man may tyrannize ouer the Parsons and Estates of Kings more freely indirectly then directly But if the opinions of the aduersaries should take place Christian Kings and Princes shall not only be Clients and Vassals to the Pope in temporalities but that which is more base they shall hold their Kingdoms and Principalities as it were at his courtesie And this I doe easily prooue euen out of the very principles and grounds of the aduersaries The Pope may take from any man his kingdome and giue it to another if so be that it be necessary for the health of soules But to iudge and determine if it be necessary belongs to the same Pope of whose iudgement whether it be right or wrong none can iudge therefore where he listeth he may depriue euery man of his kingdome and giue it to another The Proposition in this argument is the very opinion of the aduersaries and the Assumption is without controuersie amongst all Catholikes for none but an Heretike will deny that the charge of soules belonges to the successour of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly the conclusion followes necessarily of the
premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules and none 〈…〉 of has iudgement as hath beene said And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 thâ—â— kingdomes which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christiaâ— Kings and Princes should stand 〈…〉 that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all tempâ—â—alitiâ—s of Christians who shall meaâ—â— tâ—at 〈…〉 owne pleasure and iudgement that 〈…〉 for him if he be displeased then to 〈…〉 his indirect power so oâ—t 〈…〉 priuate 〈◊〉 oâ— the ambiâ—◠〈…〉 forward or euen 〈…〉 and contemned 〈…〉 Where of â—â—â—face 〈…〉 haue giuen 〈…〉 all of iâ—any they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the poâ—tifiâ—◠〈…〉 and 〈…〉 one after another as 〈…〉 I omit this reason taken 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—ought it 〈…〉 for that 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 kingdoms but an execution 〈…〉 to thâ—m by the Pope â—â—t iâ— it strange against the 〈…〉 and all the abâ—ttoâ— of the indirect power 〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction is 〈…〉 by the law of God oâ— of Man and also he 〈…〉 oâ— holdeth any thâ—ng iâ— he hold by neiâ—â—â—â— of these holdeth wrongfullâ— as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Dâ—â—atists Therefore it cannot be that the Pope should iustly exercise any temporall iurisdiction ouer secular Kings and Princes vnlesse it be certaine that the same is giuen him either by the law of God or of Man But neither in diuine nor humane lawes is any such place found which confers any such power vpon him whereas on the contrary part the domination and authority of kings is openly commended and allowed by many testimonies of sacred Scriptures as when it is said By mee Kings raigne All power is giuen to you The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them The heart of the King is in the hand of God I will giue them a King in mine anger My sonne feare the Lord and the King Feare God honour the King and euery where the like speeches Lastly seeing this temporall power and Iurisdiction of the Pope whereof we speake is not found to be comprised neither in the expresse word of God in the Scriptures nor by the tradition of the Apostles receiued as it were by hand nor practised by vse and custome in the Church for these thousand yeeres and more or exercised by any Pope nor allowed and commended nay not so much as mentioned by the ancient Fathers in the Church I pray you what necessitie of faith should force vs to admit it or with what authoritie can they perswade the same vnto vs Our opinion say they is prooued by reasons and examples how glad say I would I be that that were true But wee ought chiefely to know this that onely those reasons are fit to prooue this opinion of theirs whereof euident proofes and demonstrations are made which none of them hath hitherto brought nor as I thinke could bring For as touching reasons onely probable and likely whereof Dialectike syllogismes doe consist their force is not such as can conclude and giue away from Kings and Princes their soueraigne authoritie from them seeing that euen in daily brables about trifling matters nothing can be concluded vnlesse the Cause of the Suiter bee prooued by manifest and euident proofes and witnesses and therefore the Actor not proouing he that is conuented although himselfe performe nothing shall carie the businesse But the helpe is very weake and feeble in Examples because they onely shew what was done not what ought to be done those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimonie of the Scriptures which seeing they are thus let vs now see with what reasons the Aduersaries continue their opinion CHAP. XIII THere is not one amongst them all who are of the Popes partie as I said before who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharpely or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉 than the worthy Diuine Bellarmine whom I mention for honors sake who although he gaue as much to the Popes authoritie in temporalities as honestly hee might and more then he ought yet could hee not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist Who affirmed that hee had supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the whole earth and all Peoples Countries and Nations committed vnto him not by humane but by diuine ordinance And therefore he was very neere by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to haue abolished all the writings of that Doctor which do oppugne heresie with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report to me Which matter comforts me if peraduenture that which I would not any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholikes to read my bookes Let him doe what he will but he shall neuer bring to passe that I euer forsake the Catholike Apostolike and Romish faith wherein I haue liued from a Child to this great age or dye in another profession of faith then which was prescribed by Pius the 4. We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are fiue in number leauing others especially Bozius his fancies which are vnworthy that a man of learning should trouble himselfe to refute The first reason is which Bellarmine propounds in these wordes The ciuill power is subiect to the spirituall power when each of them is a part of the Christian common-wealth therefore a spirituall Prince may command ouer temporall Princes and dispose of temporall matters in order to a spirituall good for euery superiour may command his inferiour And least any peraduenture elude this reason by denying the Proposition with the next he labours to strengthen the same by three reasons or Media as they call them Now that ciuill power not onely as Christian but also as Ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiastike as it is such first it is prâ—â—ued by the ends of them both for the temporall end is subordinate to the spirituall end as it appeares because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore ought to be referred to the felicitie eternall Now it is plaine out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate as the ends are subordinate Secondly Kings and Bishops Cleargie and Laitie doe not make two common wealthes but one that is one Church for we are all one bodie Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth 12. But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one of another but it is no right assertion that spirituall things depend on temporall therefore temporall things depend of spirituall and are subiect to them Thirdly if a temporall administration hinder a spirituall good in all mens iudgement the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment yea euen with the losse of a temporall good therefore it is a signe
and we confesse it For if one be more â—orthy then another it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy and is â—â—â—strate and suâ—â—â—â—ted to it for they may â—all out to be comprehended â—â— kinds or orderâ— so â—iuers by nature that neither can depend of other or be hâ—ld by any bond of subiection Therefore we grant that a Prâ—â—ce in the case propâ—â—nded ought to change the â—orm of Câ—uill administâ—at 〈…〉 to â—o it by the church or by the hâ—aâ— thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth which is the Pope but oâ—â—lâ—â—â— Spâ—â—â—tuall punishment the horror whereoâ— to a good man 〈◊〉 greeâ—â—ous then all the pu 〈…〉 by the testiâ—oâ—â—e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporall punishment as is 〈…〉 of Kingdome seeing a 〈…〉 poraltiâ—â— Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a 〈…〉 Hence â—â—dorus whose opinion is registred amongst the Canons Whether the peace and diâ—cipline of the Church be increased by faithfull Princes or 〈…〉 of them who hath deliuered and committed the Church to their power CHAP. XV. Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakned by that which hath been said yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse and more at large to explaine my whole meaning touching this point Therefore we must vnderstand that all Kings and Princes christian as they are the children of the Church are subiect to the Ecclesiastike power and that they ought to obey the same so oft as the commandeth spirituall things which vnlesse they shall doe the Church by the power and Iurisdiction which she hath ouer them may inflict spirituall Censures vpon them and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit although she ought not to doe at alwaies as hath been before declared but with that sâ—ord onely not with the visible and temporall sword alâ—â— because 〈◊〉 sword is committed onely to the Ciuil and Secular power Wherefore so oft as the spirituall power standeth in need of the assistance of the temporall sword she is accustomed to intreat the fauour and friendship of the Ciuill power her friend and companion Contrariwise that Ecclesiastike Princes and Prelates are subiect to ciuill Princes in temporalities and ought to obey them in all things which belong to their ciuill gouernment in no other manner then the Ciuill are bound to obey them commanding spirituall things so as they bee such as repugne neither the Catholike faith nor good manners Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason but because that by the bountie of Kings he hath been made a King himselfe I meane a ciuill Prince acknowledging no man for his superiour in temporalties and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Iurisdiction confesse whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer ad precipua capita Apologiae c. That opinion saith he is generall and most true that all men ought altogether to obey the superiour power But because power is twofold spirituall and temporall Ecclesiastike and Politike of which one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings the Bishops must bee subiect to the Kings in temporall matters and the Kings to the Bishops in spirituall as Gelasius the first in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael And because the Bishop of Rome is not onely a chiefe Prince Ecclesiastike to whom all Christians are subiect by the law of God but is also in his Prouinces a Prince temporall nor acknowledgeth any superiour in temporalties no more than other absolute and soueraigne Princes doe in their kingdomes and iurisdictions hence it commeth to passe that in earth he hath no power ouer him Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection but because he possesseth a temporall principality which is subiect to none Therefore in those matters which belong to the safety of the common wealth and to ciuill society and are not against the diuine ordinance the Cleargie is no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne Prince temporall then other Citizens are as Bellarmine himselfe declareth excellently well adding also a reason secondly for that Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men they are also Citizens and certaine ciuill parts of the common wealth Cleargie men saith he are not any way exempted from the obligation of ciuill lawes which do not repugne the sacred Canons or the clericall dutie And although he saith that he speakes not of coactiue obligation yet is it more true that they may be constrained by a temporall iudge to the obedience of the lawes where the cause doth require that in that case they should not enioy the benefit of their exemption which it is certaine enough that they receiued from the lawes of Emperors and Princes For in vaine doth he challenge the benefit of lawes who offends against them Hence it is I meane out of this society and fellowship of clerkes and laikes in the common weale that in publike assemblies the Cleargie if they be to consult of temporall affaires doe fit in the next place to the Prince Therefore spirituall power by the word of power it is vsuall to signifie the persons indued with power doth both command and obey politike power and the politike her againe And this is that indeed whereof B. Gregorie the Pope admonisheth Maurice the Emperor let not our Lord saith he out of his carthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests but out of his excellent iudgement euen for his sake whose seruants they are let him so rule ouer them as that also he yeeld them due reference That is to say let him rule ouer them so far forth as they are Citizens and parts of the common wealth yeeld reuerence as they are the Priests of God and spirituall fathers to whom the Emperor himselfe as a child of the Church is in subiection And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers is by a singular president declared of Salomon who feared not to pronounce Abiathar the high Priest guilty of death because he had a hand in the treason of Adoniah For the story saith The King also said to Abiathar the Priest Goe thy waies to Auathoth to thy house and surely thou shalt die but to day I will not slay thee because thou hast caried the Arke of the Lord before Dauid my father and hast endured trouble in all those things wherein my father was troubled Therefore Salomon dismissed Abiathar that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Salomon shewes that in a ciuill and temporall businesse he had authority ouer the Priests whereas notwithstanding it is euident that in the old law the Priests were ouer the Kings and vsed to command and also to withstand them in all things
it is not lawfull for them to vse another mans authority and is fitting for the one onely to meddle in matter of armes and for the other with matter of iustice In the same manner two soueraigne Magistrates of the Christian Common-wealth the King and the Pope doe receiue from the common King and Lord of all the great God of Heauen and Earth a diuers power each perfect in his kind and gouerne the people by different iurisdictions and offices And these surely so long as they agree together in concord of mindes doe naturally assist one another to the maintenance and conseruation of each power and authority so as both the Ecclesiastike power doth with the Heauenly and Spiritual sword strike such as be seditious and rebellious subiects to their secular Prince and in requitall the power Temporall and Politike doth with an armed hand pursue Schismatikes and others falling from the faith or otherwise carying themselues stubbornly toward their holy Mother the Church and doth sharply chastice them with temporall punishments and ciuil corrections and Mulctes But when they are rent into contrary factions and oppose themselues one against the other the whole Christian Common-wealth either wholly fales to ground or at least is most greeuously wounded because there is none but God alone who can lawfully deuide that cause and redresse the wrong offred of either side CHAP. XVIII BEing desirous to passe on to other matters I was a little staide by a doubt which did arise touching the sense of the late argument of the second reason which was conceiued by the author in these words Also euery Common-weale because shee ought to be perfect and sufficient in hirselfe may command another Common-wealth not subiect to hir and inforce hir to change her gouernment yea also to depose hir Prince and to ordaine another being shee cannot otherwise defend hirselfe from hir iniuries For to confesse the truth when I first read these words in him I paused awhile that I might throughly vnderstand the meaning of these words and what the moment and waight of this argument might be For he seemed not plainly and expresly to approue it because he did lay open to vs certaine meanes of forceing a Neighbour Common-wealth and deposing the Prince thereof And when I had a long time skanned and examined the same I resolued that either it was a riddle or that his words doe admit this sence and interpretation Euery Common-weale may denounce and wage a iust war against another Common-wealth which beares both hatred and armes against her when as she cannot otherwise deliuer hirselfe from hir iniurie and if shee be the stronger may by force and armes force hir to conditions of peace and if she suppose that by that Caution shee hath not yet prouided sufficiently for hir security because peraduenture shee hath to do with a people that is by nature false and treacherous may reduce the whole Country into her power and iurisdiction and giue her lawes and orders remooue hir Prince take away hir authority and at hir pleasure alter the whole administration of the Common-wealth into another form But if this be the true sense of these words as I suppose it is that argument surely was to small purpose brought of Bellarmine for that is not gathered from hence which he concludes forsooth Much more may the Spirituall Common-wealth command the Temporall Common-wealth being subiect vnto hir and force hir to change hir administration and to depose Princes and ordaine others c. Because in this case there be not two Common-wealthes but onely one Christian resting on two powers whereof neither is subiect to other as we haue aboue sufficiently demonstrated as also for that if we grant that they are two Common-wealthes distinct the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall and the Temporall he must of force confesse that in the one all Bishops and Clerikes only are comprised in the other all secular Princes and Laikes or that this is compounded of onely Ecclesiastikes that of onely Laikes For although the Laikes and Clerikes together doe constitute one Church and one christian Common-weale yet they doe not make together one Ecclesiastike and spiritual Common-wealth as it is distinguished from the temporall nor one temporall and secular Common-wealth but according to the diuision and separation aboue named the Laikes make the temporall and the Ecclesiastikes the spirituall in the case wherein the temporall is distinguished from the spirituall after this manner But now seeing the Ecclesiastike common-wealth containes onely Clerikes whose weapons ought to be none other but Praiers and Teares how can it be that she being weake and vnarmed can compell but by Miracle a temporall Common-weale armed to change the manner of her administration Therefore there is nothing more fond then this comparison and consequution of Bellarmine since in reasoning he proceeds from Common-wealthes well prouided for exercise and furniture of armes to Common-wealthes the one whereof is vtterly disfurnished of armes For as oft as one State either repelleth the iniuries which another would offer or reuengeth them being offered she fighteth with those armes which are allowed her and which by law of armes she may vse that is to say Corporall and Visible by force whereof she ouerturnes the bodies of her enemies inuades their holds battereth townes and ouerthrowes the whole state of the enemie Common-wealth But the spirituall Common-weale which he calles is quite destitute of this kind of armes and because it is composed of Clerikes onely it is lawfull for her to fight with spirituall armes onely which are Prayers and Teares for such are the defences of Priests in no other manner neither ought they neither can they resist For all of them are commanded in the person of Peter to put vp the Materiall sword How then can the spirituall Common-wealth constraine the temporall Common-wealth which contemnes the spirituall thunder-boltes that she should change the manner and forme of her Administration or depose her Prince and ordaine another Now if any peraduenture doe propound that the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth should bee assisted in the execution of so great a matter by the humane forces of secular men for Princes and all other Christians ought to be Nurses and defenders of the Church he will be answered out of hand that in that case the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth doth not constraine the temporall common-weale but is onely the Cause wherefore an other State temporall by whose helpe that spirituall one is defended and protected doth reuenge the wrong done vnto the Church In no other manner than if the whole Common-wealth should reuenge an iniurie or a slaughter receiued in the person of one Citizen Euen as it is recorded that the rest of the Tribes of Israell did wage a bitter and a grieuous warre against the Beniamites for rauishing the wife of one Leuite So the Graecians in times past reuenged Menclaus his iniurie with the ruine of Troy And the Romanes punished with a sharpe warre Teuca Queene of the
Emperour although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith yet was ordained of God and was inferour to God alone Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection not because they could not but because they lawfully might not Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only and the lesse could not depose the greater how could the Christian subiects depose him What doth either the Apostle fight with himselfe or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another Or euen those ancient fathers who succeeded the Apostles were they ignorant of their whole â—â—gâ—t and â—â—â—ledge against Iâ—nded or Heretâ—kâ— Kings and Mâ—gâ—â—traâ—â—â— For that they had force and strength equall 〈◊〉 and more then fuilâ—â—t to eâ—ecute an exploâ—t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very largely Thereâ—ore it is â—â—â—dent by these that the authoritie of the Apostle Paâ—â— doth nothing appâ—â—taâ—â— to the former proposition of Bellarâ—â—â—e touching the deposing of Kings and therefore that hee committed a great error that in a matter so serious and of so great moment hee hath deâ—â—ded the Reader with a false shadoâ— of the Apostle authoritie If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apoâ—â—lâ—â— direction had taken aâ—aâ— the authoritie poâ—er and â—â—nstâ—â—tion of the msidell Iudges or in aâ—â— paâ—â—hadal â—â—gaâ—â—d the same or had exempted Christians from their subieâ—â—â—n there could nothing haue been stronger thâ—â— â—â—â—â—unes argument nothing more trâ—â—â— thâ—n â—â—s opâ—â—â— But because that constitution of Iudgeâ— dâ—â— no more prâ—iâ—dice â—eathâ—â— Iâ—â—â—â—diction theâ— the châ—sing of Peâ—â—e Kings at â—â—â—uetide or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the â—antoâ— youth in the 〈…〉 is prâ—iudâ—câ—all to the true Kings and Magistrateâ— it iâ— certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be draâ—â—â— from thence But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question I must adâ—â—â—â—tise you that S. Thomas is in some places of that opinion that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethnâ—ke Princes may iustly be taken away by the â—â—â—tence or ordination of the Church hauing the authoritie of God as he saith S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me but not so great as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canonâ—call Scripture or that it should ouercome either reason or law Whose ghost I honour and admire his doctrine But yet there is no reason why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie for his opinion and also because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie And the reason which he brings because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull who are translated into the sonnes of God An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man as though if any man deserue to be depriued of oâ—ce benefice dignitie authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth may therefore presently be spoiled by another rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same or by another that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him Who knoweth not that the Chancellor Constable and other officers made by the King doe deserue to loose their place if in any thing they abuse their office but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them so long aâ— the Prince on whom onely they doe depend â—uâ—ereth them to execute their once In like manner infidell Princes although by the desert of 〈◊〉 â—â—fidelitie they deserue to 〈◊〉 their authoritie yet because they are constituted by God and are inferiour to him alone they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie and deposed but by God himselfe And indeed the same Thomas in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul aboue recited in this Chapter sheweth plainly enough that the Church hath not that authoritie whereby shee may depose â—thinkes for he saith it is against the law of God to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes Now it is sure that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God further to take from infidell Princes the right of Lordship and Dignitie is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement Therefore the Church hath not that power And let any man who will peruse all Stories he shall finde no where that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie to iudge Princes infidell or heathen Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall as Thomas thinketh in that place but for want of rightfull power because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull according to that of the Apostle What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without and also because Princes appointed by God haue God onely Iudge ouer them by whom only they may be deposed Neither is it to the matter that Paul when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels addeth that only Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed for he said not that as though for that cause onely seruants should obey their Masters but that especially for that cause they should doe it and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe which could arise thereof that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters to wit the publike scandall of the whole Church of God and of Christian doctrine Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will if they might doe it without scandall to the Church for they should not commit flat theft in their owne persons by the law of Nations But he would shew that they did not onely sinne which in other places he plainly teacheth but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault and aboue all things to be auoided Therefore now it remaineth that according to my promise I make proofe that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes is false euen out of the Prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 and granted by himselfe The matter is plaine and easie to be done for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes in all Ciuill causes as other men his words are these I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because indeed hee was his Iudge although not of right for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere lib. 2. cap. 96.
subiects to his sect if a maried person beleeuing bee not free from the yoke of the other Mate vnbeleeuing although he will not continue with the beleeuing yoke-fellow without inturie to the faith and contumelie to the Creator As Innocentius III. openly teacheth in cap. Quanto § sivero De Diuort in cap. ex parte De conuers coniugat adeo vt Panorm in illum § Si verò doth say out of the reason there laid That the Church cannot dissolue such a Mariage and free the beleeuing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the vnbeleeuing when as notwithstanding a beleeuing yoke-mate may much more easily be peruerted by a yoke-mate vnbeleeuing then the whole people by a King But the bond of the subiection whereby the people is tied to the King since it proceeds both from naturall and diuine Law seemeth much more hard to be dissolued then that of maried Persons between themselues that from thence a man may easily prooue that the Church can doe no more in one then in the other But if he vnderstand his argument of the later maried persons the answer is easie out of the same Decretall Epistle of Innocent to wit That betweene such couples the Mariage is not good as much as appertaines to the indissoluble bonds of Matrimony And therefore such kind of maried parsons haue full liberty to dissolue the matrimony that they may depart either with consent and good likeing or with mislike and displeasure and the one of them euen against the liking of the other may by refusall and diuorse at his pleasure dissolue that knot of mariage for the woman may as wel send letters of diuorse to the man as the man to the wife For saith he although the Matrimony among Infidels be true because they goe together according to the commandement of the lawes yet it is not firme But amongst the beleeuers it is both true and firme because the Sacrament of faith being once admitted is neuer lost but makes firme the Sacrament of mariage that it continues in the maried persons while that continueth It is no wonder then if the maried persons brought to the faith be free from the fellowship and power of his fellow remayning in Infidelity when as although both had continued in Infidelity it had beene euen as free for each of them to depart from the other by diuorse to dissolue mariage because in the beginning there passed no forme and rate bond of Obligation betweene them And therefore the Apostle doth not command but aduise that the beleeuing wife should not depart from the vnbeleeuing husband if he be willing to stay with hir as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coniâ—giis and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs Which matters since they stand thus surely it followeth that the aduersaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from maried persons to shew that people may be freed from the Regall yoake whether they regard the mariages of the Beleeuers or of the vnbeleeuers Because they are coupled with a most straight and indissoluble knot of society whose band cannot be broken no not by the Church it selfe neither for Infidelity nor Heresie of the one part So as from hence he doth furnish vs with an argument tending rather to maintaine the strength and perpetuity of Regall authority then to dissolue and destroy the same And these are tyed by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church but the husband conuerted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandall may at his pleasure take to him another And againe the woman brought to the faith if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom shee will Seeing therefore there is no firme mariage betweene these and the politike subiection and Kingly domination and rule is ratified and approued amongst all Nations and in euery law as well by diuine as humane power what can be more vnreasonable or fond then to compare and sute them together and to deduce any argument from the society and yoake of vnbeleeuing maried persons which may be shaken of at pleasure to breake the yoake of Regall power and authority and to make the same iudgement of them both as if they were as like as might be CHAP. XXIV I Tould you in the xxiij Chapter that there were fiue reasons in Bellarmine whereby he would proue that the Pope hath temporall power ouer all secular Kings and Princes Christian of which reasons we haue run thorow three and obserued how weake they are and of what diseases they labour it remaineth now that we make our suruay of the other two which are not a whit better conditioned The first whereof is by him laid downe in these words When Kings and Princes come to the Church to be made Christians they are receiued with a Couenant either expresse or secret that they should subiect their Scepters to Christs and promise that they will obserue and defend the faith of Christ yea vnder the penalty of losing their kingdome Ergo. When they prooue Heretikes or hurt Religion they may be iudged by the Church and withall be deposed from their gouernment neither shall any iniury be done them if they be deposed I answer this reason by denying the consequent For although it be true that Princes comming to the Church do submit themselues and their scepters to Christ and euen of their owne accord doe make those promises either secretly or expresly which Bellarmine reporteth yet it is not true neither doth it follow thereof that they may be iudged and deposed by the Church or Pope if they breake their promise or neglect to keepe their Couenant and Oath Because that soueraigne iurisdiction and temporall power of Christ ouer all Kings and the whole world which he hath as the sonne of God doth not appertaine to the Church or Pope but that power onely which Christ assumed to himselfe when he was conuersant amongst men after the manner of men according to which the Pope is Christs Vicar Whereupon Bellarmine himselfe writeth excellently well We say quoth hee that the Pope hath that office which Christ had when after the maner of men he liued amongst men in the world For we may not giue the Pope those offices which Christ hath as God or as animmortall and glorious man but onely those which he had as a mortall man But Christ vsurped no temporall dominion and power when he liued as a man amongst men in earth and therefore neither the Church as the Church nor the Pope as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ can haue any temporall power as the same learned man declareth and prooueth at large in that Chapter Wherefore although Kings and Princes when they come to the Church do subiect their Kingdomes to the Lord Christ and haue Christ their iudge from whom they haue also their Kingdome but because the iudgement is of a temporall affaire when the businesse is touching
a kingdome forfeited they haue him onely their Iudge and not the Church or the Pope Whereby it doth easily appeare how captious those reasons and conclusions are which Sanders from whom Bellarmine hath receiued this stuffe of his doth deduce out of those manner of promises made either secretly or expresly For as concerning those formes of asking and answering which he with many idle words and falsely deuiseth betweene the Pope and the Princes which come to the Church we must answer that they are fondly conceiued by him and that they neither ought nor are accustomed to passe in the admittance of Heathen Princes which come to the Church least the Church should seeme either to suspect them or to diuine and conceiue ill of them for the time to come Therfore their burning loue towards Christ and present confession of their faith whereby they in general tearms promise that they wil giue there names to Christ and become children of the Church and will renounce the diuel and his works and keep the commandements of God and the Church and such like are cause sufficient enough that they should be receiued All which matters they doe indeed promise to Christ the Church receiuing the promise as his Spouse in whose boosome they are regenerate or the Bishop himselfe not as a man but as a Minister of Christ God himselfe discharging a Deputies office heerein and therefore the obligation is principally taken to Christ himselfe by the Church or the Pope Whereby although they haue also promised all other things which Sanders hath comprehended in that forged forme of his and shall afterwards neglect or wholy contemne that couenant agreed on they can be punished by him onely into whose words they did sweare and who is the Lord of all temporall estates and whom they haue for their onely Iudge ouer them intemporall matters but not by him to whom the care onely of spirituall matters and to take the promise is committed And to these spirituall matters are those things most like and most resemble them which we see daily to be obserued in the ciuill Gouernment They who aspire to the succession of Feudes or Fees whether they come in by hereditarie right or by any other title cannot enioy them vnlesse they first be admitted into his clientele and seruice who is Lord of the Fee that is vnlesse they in words conceiued doe take the oath of fealtie to the Lord which they commonly call Homagium or Hominium But if it be the Kings fee to which they succeed the King doth seldome in his owne Person take the oath of fealtie but executeth that businesse for the most part by his Chancellor or soem other Deputie especially assigned for that purpose Therefore the Chancellor when hee admits to Fees and Honors great Personages swearing into the Kings wordes he dischargeth the same office vnder the King in a Ciuill administration and iurisdiction which the Pope doth vnder Christ in the spirituall gouernment of the Church when he receiues Princes comming vnto her by taking the oath of their faithfulnesse and pietie towards God And the Chancellor the Tenant once admitted although after he breake his oath and commit the crime which they call Felonie may in no cause take away the Fee which is the proper right of the King alone and not granted to the Chancellor at all So neither can the Pope depriue of Kingdomes and authoritie or any way temporally punish Princes receiued into the Church although they offend grieuouslie afterward or forsake the faith Because that is reserued to God onely Therfore although Christian Kings and Princes be in the Church and in respect that they are the Children of the Church be inferiour to the church and the Pope notwithstanding in regard that they doe beare a soueraigne rule temporall in the world they are not inferiours but rather superiours and therefore although they haue forfeited their kingdome by secret or expresse couenant yet neither people nor Pope nor church canne take it away from them But onely Almightie God alone from whom is all power and to whom aloue they are inferiour in Ciuill administration And neither shall Bellarmine nor any other be euer able to bring or as I may say to digge out of the monuments of any age any forcible argument whereby he may make it plaine vnto vs that secular Kings and Princes when they were receiued to the Faith by the Church did in such manner renounce their interest as both to lay downe altogether the temporall authoritie which they had receiued of God and also to subiect themselues to the Church to be iudged in Ciuill affaires and to be chastised with temporall punishment And if none of them can demonstrate this they must needs confesse that Kings and Princes did after the faith receiued retaine their Kingdomes and Empires in the same Right the same Libertie and Authoritie wherein they possessed them before such time as they came to the Church because as the Aduersaries doe confesse Lex Christineminem priuat iure suo If therefore before Baptisme they had no Iudge aboue them in temporall matters but God alone neither ought they to haue any after Baptisme But we haue spoken more of this matter in the refutation of the first reason In this place I stand not much vpon Bozius his dotages Now for that he vnderlaies after this fourth reason in the words following For he is not fit to receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme who is not ready to serue Christ and for his sake to loose whatsoeuer he hath For the Lord saith Lu. 14. if any man come to me and hateth not father and mother and wife and children yea and euen his owne life he cannot be my Disciple I cannot tell to what end he vseth these words Surely no man denies it But what of it Such a reason belongs no more to the purpose then that which is furthest from the matter nor that neither which followeth in the same place Besides saith he the Church should grieuously erre if she should admit any King which would with impunitie cherish euery manner of sect and defend heretikes and ouerthrow Religion This is most true But as I said it belongs nothing to the purpose for now the question is not of that matter but of the temporall power of the Church or of the Pope who is the substitute head thereof vnder Christ I meane whether he haue that power whereby he may chastise with temporall punishments Kings and Princes duely receiued if after they shall breake the faith and forsake the dutie vndertaken by them in the lauer of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proued or disprooued by these correllaries and additions and for this cause we passe them ouer CHAP. XXV THe fift and last reason is drawen from his Pastorall charge and office in these wordes When it was said to Peter Feed my sheepe Iohn the last all the power was giuen him which was necessarie to maintaine the
produce wonderfull effects as euen at this day sometimes he vpon the like occasion doth produce among people which be newly won to Christ. CHAP. XXVI SEeing these matters stand thus the way is made more easie for vs to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation being now already opened by vs and retorted backe vpon himselfe for they fall to ground partly thorow their owne fault and weaknesse and partly because they are not wel set vpon the foundation whereon they are built For first out of that that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Woolues that be may driue them away by any meane he can he reasoneth in this manner Woolues which destroy the Church of God are Heretikes Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolfe that is of a Christian become an Heretike the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also command the People that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of his gouernment ouer his subiects But he is deceiued or doth deceiue vs by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion For in that he saith that the Pastor of the Church may driue away an Heretike Prince by excommunication that is very true and is deriued out of that principle by a necessary consecution But that he may onely marry that he ought not to do it but at such times when as he may coÌ„modiously do it without scandall and hurt to the Church as I haue de-declared before For where there is danger least the peace of the Church may be dissolued and least The member of Christ be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes the seuere mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary that is to say is wholy to be left to the iudgement and punishment of God for Counsell of separation that is of excommunication are both vaine and hurtfull and Sacrilegious because they become both impious and preud and doe more disturbe the weake good ones then correct the sâ—urdy ill ones This is the doctrine of S. Angustine approoued by the common voice of the Church whereby it is euident how rasâ—ly and vnwisely certaine Popes haue separated from the Church by excommunication most mighty Emperours and Kings with the great scandall of the whole world and dissolution of the peace of the Church whom it had beene farre better to haue tolerated and to haue discouered their faults onely and with mourning to haue bewailed them in the Church For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept and for the saluation of the weake brethren and such as now were fed onely with milke least the members of the body of Christ should be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes Therefore the Popes might doe this but they ought not Non omne quod licet honestum est Very well saith the Apostle omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt Therefore the first part of the conclusion is true that the Pastor of the Church may driue away heretike Princes by excommunication But that which followeth and withall command the people that they follow him not hath two eares to hold by as I may say with Epictetus the one sound the other broken I meane a twofold vnderstanding the one true the other faulty For if he speake in this sense that it is the duty of the Pope to command the subiects that they follow not an heretike Prince in his heresie that they run not with him in his madnesse nor admit and swallow downe his damnable errors for that they suffer not themselues to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true and is deriued very truly out of the same principle and fountaine and this is the best sense of those words For there is nothing so conuenient and comely for the pontificall dignity and the whole order Ecclesiastike nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people as that according to the patterne of the ancient fathers of the Church the principall Bishop himselfe first and the rest of his brethren all of them should preach the word should be instant in season and out of season conuince intreat rebuke in all patience and doctrine That like Faithfull witnesses and good seruants whom the Lord hath set ouer his family they may so worke both by word and example that the people follow not the errors of their King nor either dissemble nor forsake the Catholike faith thorow any either threatnings or allurements of the King which because most of them either do not all at this day or at the least much more slackly then they ought and that duty which it becomes them to performe themselues they put ouer to certaine begging Friers what maruell is it if many in our age haue been caried away as it were with a whirle wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds into the toiles of the diuell This as I haue said is the best sense But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speake in this sense both the cause which he hath in hand and this clause following Ac proinde prinare eum dominio in subditos doth plainly declare Therefore he giues vs the broken care of the pot I meane the corrupt and the very worst sense of those words forsooth that the pastor of the Church may command the subiect that they execute no commandement of such a Prince and that by any meanes they yeeld him no reuerence obedience honor in those matters which belong euen to a temporall and ciuill authority And therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects But this is false and flat contrary to the law of God and precepts of the Apostles Feare the Lord my sonne and the King Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and powers to obey their commandement Be subiect to euery creature for God or to the King as soueraigne feare God honor the King and diuers of that kind which things seeing they be spoken of wicked Kings and persecutors of the Church for at that time no other ruled in the world they can not but belong to the worst and vnworthiest kind of Kings Therefore this is that which I said before that either he deceiues of purpose or is deceiued by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion For it is true that a Pastor of the Church may driue away an heretike Prince by excommunication but it is false that he may depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects For obedience due to Kings and all superiors is both by 〈◊〉 of nature and of God how then can the Pope by any meane dispense with people against the same For they that with more diligence and exact care doe search the scriptures doe obserue a too fold kind of the precepts of Paul one is of those by which he publisheth the law of God which he was sent to
beginning that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subiection is giuen As also because by the vow of religiont he obligation is taken only to God and the Church whereof the Pope is the Vicar or deputed head and therefore if the Pope to whom the free procuration and dispensation of all the buisnesses of the Church is permitted shall as it were in a fashion of renewing a bond transfuse and change the obligation taken to the Church into another Obligation and also doe interpret and consture that by the promise of a great good or performance there is satisfaction made to the Lord God who is the principall creditor in that businesse peraduenture it will not be very absurd to say that there may by chance prooue a liberation and freedome from the knot of the former vow and promise vnlesse some may thinke that it cannot be for this cause because the transgression of a lawfull vow is simply and of his owne nature sinfull and that which is sinfull may not be allowed to be donne to obtaine any good although it be very great But the solution of that obiection is very easie But the matter 〈◊〉 farre otherwise in the case of an Oath which men in their bargaines and couenants are wont to take to confirme and ratifie another Obligation thereby Seeing such a manner of oath is a certaine increase of that obligation to which it is added for securitie in such manner as suertiesâ—ip or assurance of any Pledge or Moregage is vsually taken And therefore although the oath be said to be made to God yet in this case the obligation doth accrew not to God principally but to the person to whom the oath is sworne quia per iuramentum â—urans non intendebat placere Deo sed satisfacere proximo Whereby it commeth to passe that he to whom the Oath is taken hath much more interest by that Oath and obtaineth much more power either to retaine it or to remit it then is granted to the Church in a vow for the Church or Pope euen as they confesse who submit all things to his pleasure cannot without great and iust cause dispense with the solemne vow of Religion But he to whom an other hath by oath bound his faith in the matter of giuing or doing may both alone and without cause of his meere pleasure wholy free the Promiser from the Religion of his Oath and 〈◊〉 it to him whatsoeuer it bee of himselfe so as his onely leaue and good will obtained neither is there any more need of the Popes absolution neither if he shall not performe that which he promised may he be reputed guiltie of periurie before God Therefore it is in a man in this Case who can at his pleasure either retaine one that is bound or dismisse him free which because they are so by the consent of all men how can it be that the Pope may take from the Creditor against his will an Obligation taken to him by the best law that may be I meane by the Law naturall diuine and humane by an oath euery manner of way lawfull which was added to the lawfull contract seing in this kind as in the former there is no place left to Construction by which it may be presumed that he is satisfied to whom principally the oath was made viz. No Creditor speaking a word against nor shewing the contrarie seeing presumption yeeldeth to the truth But let it be that he may vpon cause take it away and free the Promiser from the bond of his Oath because I wil not striue longer with the Canonists about this matter let him then take it away and what then force after thinke you will seeme in this our businesse you will say that the people will be free from the commandement and subiection of the Prince a soone as they are loosed from the bond of their oath Thinke you so indeed what doe you not see that this Oath is but an Accessarie onely to ratifie and assure the Obligation whereby loyaltie and obedience was promised to the Prince doe you not know that Accessaries are taken away and discharged with auoiding of the principall Obligation for although the principall being cancelled the Accessarie falles yet by the taking away of the Accessaries the Principall is not destroied Therefore the Obligation remaineth yet to which this Oath was added which because it consists vpon naturall and diuine Law doth no lesse straitly hold the mindes and consciences of men before God then if it were supported with an Oath quia Dominus inter iur amentum loquelam nostram nullam vult esse distantiam as much as concernes keeping faith of the promise Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more by reason of the contempt of God and notwithstanding that in the externall Court Periurie is more grieuously punished by reason of the solemnitie of the promise then the faith neglected of a mans single promise and bare word as we say But if the Pope would also cancell this Obligation de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine and deliuer and discharge the Subiects from the Oath of the King and enioyne them that they should not dare to obey his requests commandements and lawes vnder paine of Excommunication Shall not the expresse commandement of God seeme to contraueene this warrant of the Pope I meane the commandement of the honoring of Kings with all obedience Is it not lawfull in such a businesse and in a cause the greatest almost that may be to doe that which the Popes interpreters are accustomed to doe in Controuersies of lesse moment And that is to make diligent and carefull inquisition into this same plenitudinem Potestatis whether it extend it selfe so farre as that by it should expresly be forbidden which God doth expresly command or that which God directly forbids to be done the same may lawfully be commanded by it God commandes mee by Salomon to feare the King by his Apostles to honour the King to be subiect and obedient to him This surely is a commandement both of naturall and diuine Law that the inferiour should obey the superiour as long as hee forbiddeth not who is superiour to them both in the same kind of power And he in this businesse betweene the people and the Prince when the question is about temporall authoritie and subiection is God alone then whom alone the King is lesse in temporall matters as in spirituall the Pope Seeing then all men doe ingenuously confesse that this fulnesse of the Apostolike power is not so great that the Pope may in any sort dispense in those things which are bidden or forbidden by the expresse word of God which Axiome or Proposition Bellarmine chiefely resteth on while he would shew That the Pope cannot subiect himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Popes power ouer all men is saith he by the law of God but the Pope cannot dispence in the law of God We
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
men and is iudged of no man And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malitious Pope whensoeuer he conceiueth and burneth with any priuate hatred against any King though he be neuer so good to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogatiue that hee may turne him out of his Kingdome and reduce him to the estate of a priuate man Which J would not speake in this place for I would not presage so hardly of the Gouernours of the holy See but that all the world doth vnderstand that the same hath in former ages beene practised by diuers Popes And it is not yet aboue the age of a good olde man since Iulius the II. did most wickedly and vniustly take from Iohn King of Nauarre his Kingdome by Ferdinando of Aragon by this very pretence of the Papall authoritie the same Iohn being not guiltie or conuinced of any crime but onely because he fauoured Lewes the French King And if to doe matters of this nature is not to be superiour in temporall affaires I would gladly learne of these great Masters what it is to be a superiour One thing I know if this opinion of theirs bee true that the Pope is able to doe more against Kings indirectly then if he should haue directly any command ouer them Of which point we haue spoken something before If therefore the Pope de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine shall goe about by his Decree or Bull to forbidde them to obey their King may not all the people againe or some in the peoples behalfe answer the Pope in this manner Holy Father You are not aboue our King in temporalties and in that respect you cannot hinder the temporall obedience which wee performe vnto him Why doe you forbidde vs to doe that which God commands vs to doe Is it because it is at your pleasure to interprete the will of God comprehended in the diuine Law and in the Scriptures But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation bee made as doth wholly make the law void and vtterly doth destroy and dissolue the commandement If there be any thing doubtfull or darke in the Law of God wee presently flie to the See of Peter that is to the See which you now doe hold to receiue the interpretation of the truth but that which is cleere and manifest of it selfe that needeth no light of any interpretation Seeing then our Lord and Sauiour commands vs to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those things which are Gods and after by his Apostle to be subiect to Princes and Powers and to bee obedient to them It is your part to declare vnto vs what things be Caesars that is to say what things belong to our King and what be Gods that both of them may haue that which belongeth to them and in this distinction of things we will willingly heare your voice But when you say I will haue you giue nothing to Caesar or to your Prince you contradict Christ and therefore wee heare not your voice Wee doe indeede confesse and professe also that the exposition and interpretation of your Holinesse should take place touching the obseruation of the diuine Law but we affirme absolutely that that is not to be receiued which maketh a scorne both of the Law of God and of Nature and bringeth the same into contempt As for example not to digresse from the matter we haue in hand We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates in the obseruation of this commandement we as obedient children doe willingly embrace your expositions and restraints which doe not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandement it selfe as when you say that from hence there growes no obligation to obey Kings but in those matters which belong to their temporall iurisdiction that all spirituall things are to bee reserued to the Vicar of Christ and to the Church Also when as you doe aduertise vs that wee ought not to yeeld obedience to the King in that which he commands against the Law of God or Nature or which otherwise is repugnant to good manners But when as you simply and absolutely command vs that we doe not in any sort obey our lawfull Prince or any of his charges commandements and lawes wee may not obey this commandement of yours because this is not to interprete the Commandement of God which is granted to your Holinesse but vtterly to abrogate and ouerthrow the same which you cannot doe by any meanes Christ when he deliuered to Peter the keies of the kingdome of heauen did not giue him power faciends de peccato non peccatum that is to say that which is sinne to make it to be none Therefore in this point we will follow the common doctrine of the Canonists That we ought not to obey the Popes commandement if either it bee vniust or that many mischiefes or scandals are likely to ensue thereof or else the disturbance and disquietnesse of the state of the Church and the Christian Common-wealth be likely to grow of the same and therefore if the Pope should command any thing to religious men which were against the substance of order that is which should bee contrarie to the rule professed by them they are not bound to obey it as Felinus interpreteth in cap. accepimus de fid instrum cap. si quando de rescript as the same Innocent teacheth elsewhere whom Martin of Carats in his tractate De Principibus quast 408. and Felinus in de cap. si quando and d. cap. accepimus doth report and follow How much lesse then ought the subiects of Kings to giue eare to the Pope going about to withdraw them from the obedience which is due to their King by the law of God and Nature and confirmed with the most straight obligation of an oath If you will vs to withdraw our neckes from the yoke and seruice of our King for this cause because a spirituall good is hindred by our obedience which is giuen to him by vs wee answer that this mischiefe whatsoeuer it bee chanceth to fall out by some accident for simply and of it selfe euill cannot grow out of good nor good out of euill Now wee haue against our willes committed that accident but we cannot hinder it Wee discharge the dutie due to our King and according to patience in doing well wee seeke glorie honour and immortalitie He if he abuse the obedience due vnto him and so great a benefit of God hee shall feele God to be a most sharpe Judge and Reuenger ouer him But it is not lawfull for vs to forsake our dutie and to transgresse the commandement of God that euen a very great good should follow thereby lest wee purchase to our selues the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce He that commands to obey our Kings and to yeeld to Casar those things which be Casars putteth no distinction betweene good and euill Princes and therefore ought not we to make any
distinction If as B. Augustine teacheth hee who hath vowed continence to God ought by no meanes to offend euen with this recompence that he beleeueth he may lawfully marie a wife because she who desires to marie with him hath promised that shee will bee a Christian and so may purchase to Christ the soule of a woman which lieth in the death of infidelitie who if shee marie him is ready to prooue a Christian What excuse shall wee vse to God if wee for the hope of some contingent good should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths which wee haue giuen to God and our King For there is nothing more precious then a soule for which our Lord and Sauiour hath vouchsafed to die And therefore if we may not sinne to gaine that to Christ for what cause shal it be lawfull for vs to sinne Moreouer in that you say that you doe free vs and pronounce vs free from the bond of this dutie that taketh not from vs all scruple of conscience but causeth vs to hang in suspence and the more to doubt of your authoritie because wee know that the commaundement wherein you promise to dispence with vs is ratified by the law of God and Nature and that your Holinesse can neuer no not by vertue of the fulnesse of your power dispense with any in the law of God and Nature Therefore wee will obey you in spirituall matters and the King in temporall matters God commands both wee will performe both To be short the comminations and threatnings which you insert in your Mandate we doe wonder at surely and in some part we feare them but yet we are not altogether so fearefull as to bee more afraid of them then we ought or that we should be so terrified with them as for feare of an vniust Excommunication to denie to our King the iust and lawfull obedience which is due vnto him For although it bee a common speech that euery Excommunication is to bee feared yet we ought to know that an vniust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced but rather him by whom it is denounced Therefore if you strike vs with the edge of your Excommunication because we will not at your commandement transgresse the Commandement of God and malum facere your malediction and curse shal be turned into a blessing so as although we may seeme to be bound outwardly yet inwardly wee remaine as it were loosed and innocent These and such like are the reasons which haue so settled the faith as well of the Clergie as Nobilitie and euen of the whole Commons of France toward their Kings that they haue resolutely withstood certaine Popes who haue earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyaltie and obedience of their Kings and haue scorned the Popes Bulles and the sentence of deposition and depriuation from the kingdome nay more that they haue not beleeued therefore not without reason that they are bound by any Ecclesiastique Censures or may iustly bee enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication For my part surely I doe not see what may iustly bee blamed in the former answer and defense of the people vnlesse it be imputed to them and be sufficient to conuince them of contumacie because they doe not by and by put in execution without all delay or examination of the equitie euery commandement of the Pope as though it were deliuered euen by the voice of God himselfe which I thinke none in his right wits will iudge As for the other points they are grounded on most firme demonstrations most sound reasons and arguments and reasons of diuine and humane law viz. That it is the commandement of God that honour and obedience should be yeelded to Kings and Princes no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded That all the authoritie of the Pope consisteth in spirituall matters That temporall affaires are left to secular Kings and Princes That the Pope is not superiour to Kings in temporall matters and therefore that he cannot punish them with temporal punishments Lastly that the Pope can in no sort dispense against the Law of Nature and of God whereby this obedience is commanded the subiects toward the Prince and for that cause can neither absolue and discharge the subiects from that obligation nor by iust excommunication censure them who doe not obey him when he forbiddeth them to giue lawfull obedience to the Prince Al which points are seuerally and distinctly concluded before with authorities testimonies and arguments which in my opinion cannot be answered which notwithstanding I will leaue to the iudgement of the Church For this is my minde and resolution to submit my selfe and all mine to the censure and iudgement of my most holy Mother CHAP. XXXI THose things which hitherto haue beene deliuered by vs of the soueraigne authoritie of Kings and Princes and of the dutie which is not to bee denied to them in all things which are not repugnant to Gods Commandements and to good manners they are confirmed by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers and the whole Church For although they had great opportunitâ—e and meanes to pull downe and to defect from their gouernment wicked Christian Princes by whom they had beene wronged with priuate and publike iniuries yet in no maner did they moue any question against them touching their authoritie and rule they denied them no parcell of humane obsequie and obedience Only they wisely freely and stoutly resisted their errours And so holding the multitude in their dutie towards God and their King they obserued both precepts of fearing God and honouring the King And in very deede this is the principall remedie to preserue mens mindes from slipping and reuoke them from errour and the most ready way and meane to reduce Kings and Princes being furiously caried headlong with a frenticke heresie from immanitie and fiercenesse to courtesie and mildnesse from errour to truth from heresie to the faith which course the ancient Fathers euer held in such like cases which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages and had not arrogated to themselues that same insolent and proud and hatefull domination ouer Kings and Emperours in temporall matters it had gone better then at this time it doth with the Christian Common-wealth and peraduenture those heresies wherewith wee are now sore pressed might haue beene strangled in the very cradle For euen the issue and the euent of businesse to this day doth sufficiently teach that the Popes doe little or nothing auaile while they hold this high slipperie and steepe headlong way but that they doe more times raise troubles schismes and warres by this meane in Christian Countries then propagate the faith of Christ or increase the profit and enlarge the liberty of the Church How vnprofitable and hurtfull to the Christian Common-wealth that assault was of Gregorie the VII vpon Henrie the IV. which Gregorie was the
first of all the Popes that euer aduentured this high course wee haue sufficiently declared before But who is ignorant how that same furious aggression and censure of Boniface the VIII vpon Philip the Faire how little it profited nay how much it hurt the Church Likewise that of Iulius the II. against Lewes the XII both Kings of France of Clement the VII and Paulus the III. against Henrie the VIII and of Pius Quintus against Elizabeth Kings of England Did not all these Princes not onely not acknowledge but also contemne and laugh to scorne that same papall imperiousnesse carried beyond the bounds of a spirituall iurisdiction as meere arrogation and an vsurped domination For the two last Popes I dare bee bold to affirme vpon a cleere ground for the matter is knowne to all the world that they were the cause that Religion was lost in England for that they tooke vpon them to vsurpe and practise so odious and so large a iurisdiction ouer the Prince and people of that kingdome Therefore how much more iustly and wisely did Clement the VIII who chose rather by a spirituall and fatherly charitie and a vertue agreeable to his name to erect and establish the state of the French Kingdome which began to stagger and sway in religion then to contend by this same haughty and threatning authority of a temporall iurisdiction because hee knew that seldome or neuer it had happie issue Out of doubt for Kings and Princes who glory not without cause that they are beholding onely to God the Sword for their Kingdomes and principalities it is proper to them of a naturall greatnes of mind to desire rather to die with honour then to submit their scepters to an others authority and to acknowledge any iudge superiour in temporall matters And for that cause it seemeth not to be good for the Church and Christian common-wealth that the Pope should be inuested in so great an authority ouer secular Princes by reason of the manifold slaughters miseries and lamentable changes of Religion and of all things besides which dospring from thence In which consideration I cannot but wonder at the weake iudgement of some men who take themselues to be very wise who to remoue from the Pope the enuie of so hatefull a power and to mitigate allay the indignation of Kinges whome it offen deth so much are not afraide to giue out and to publish in bookes scattered abroad that this temporall prerogatiue of the Pope ouer Kings is passing profitable euen for the Kings thēselus because as they say mē somtimes are kept in compasse more through the feare of loosing temporall then of spirituall estates An excellent reason surely and worthy of them who put no difference betweene Princes and priuate persons and measure all with one foot Surely these men reach so farre in vnderstanding that they vnderstand nothing at all As though that feare wich falles vpon priuate persons is wont to possesse also the minds of Princes who hold themselues sufficiently protected and armed with the onely authority of their gouernment against all power and strength and impression of any man That reason ought onely to be referred to them whom the terrour of temporall authority and the seuerity of ordinary iurisdiction do reclaime from offending with feare of punishment for these kind of people because they are sure that if they offend they shall be chastised with some pecuniarie or corporall mult doe for the most part abstaine from doing hurt not for conscience but for the displeasure and feare of the losse of temporall thinges But Kings haue not the same reason but being placed on high aboue all humane constitutions and all positiue lawes doe giue vnto God onely the account of their administration whose punishment the longer it is in cōming the more seuere it is like to bee Against priuate persons the execution of punishment is ready which they cannot auoid without the mercy of the Prince But what execution can bee done against Princes seeing they are not tied by any sanctions of humane lawes nullisque ad poenam vocentur legibus tuti imperij poteslate For that it is expressed in the law That the Prince is free from the laws that both the Latine and the Greeke Interpreters do vnderstand as of all lawes so especially of poenall that the Prince although he doe offend may not be chastised by them or as the Graecians doe speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is the cause that Kings being assured both the greatnesse of their authority and confidence of their Armes feare not the losse of any temporall estate seeing there is not one among a thousād of them so froward and friendlesse but that he can find many friends to follow his party by whose helpe and aduice whether he be to vse sleight or strength hee supposeth he can maintaine his Crowne and scepter And for this very reason it is so farre that they will be terrified with these imperious and lording minitations to take their Kingdomes away that they are rather inflamed and set on fire by them against all pietie and religion And it is verie certaine that this temporall power which the Pope some ages past doth challenge ouer all men is so hatefull to princes that euen they who doe much honour the seate of Peter and do acknowledge the great power of his successors in spirituall causes yet they cannot without indignation endure to heare the speech of this temporall domination The reason is because neither in the sacred scriptures nor traditions of Apostles or any writings of ancient fathers there appeareth any testimony nay no token or print of footing of any such authority of the Pope and that a matter of so great weight I meane so great a commaund and power of raigning should bee euicted or wrested from them without the manifest word of God or pregnant proofe of reason neither can they endure any reason of law or indifferencie of equity can admit Wherfore wise men haue euer been of this mind that the Popes should with much more case procure the peace of the Church if according to the custome of their ancesters they would quietly rest themselues within the bounds and compasse of the spirituall iurisdiction and that according to their Apostolicke charity they should humblie entreat wicked Kings requesting beseeching protesting with praiers and teares that they would returne into the way rather then that they should goe about through this hatefull intermination to strip them of their temporall authority as it were through force and feare wherby they profit nothing or little to extort and wrest from them amendement of maners and faith And if these Princes bee so obstinate and stiffe in their wicked courses that they can be moued with no teares nor bended with no praiers the assistance of God must be implored and they abandoned to his iudgement But now let vs goe forward CHAP. XXXII THe second argument which Bellarmine deducteth out of his fift
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
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
of the Church haue authority as well ouer body and goods as ouer the soules of all Christians which no sober man before him did euer so much as dreame of But with what vnhandsomnesse and incongruence hee deduceth this out of the reasons laid before by him I will say open in the next Chapter But he applieth to his purpose the Argument taken from the person of Elias and his actions in this manner Elias by the sword of the spiriâ—e that is to say by his praiers commaunded the fire to fall from heauen and to destroy those fifty who despising the authority of the Prophets said vnto him in the name of an earthly power Man of God the King hath commaunded thee to descend c. and in respect of the earthly power contemned that spirituall power which Elias was indued with all And in scorne saluted him Homo Dei man of God And in this manner hee goeth forward thus Could noâ— Elias at whose call fire deseended from heauen and deuoured the fifty men say to some Prince and Magistrate if he had been present Sir because these souldiers doe contemne me and in me God whose Prophet I am runne vpon them and kill them or could not an earthly sword haue executed the same office which the fire from heauen did performe If fire quâ—th he be the more noble element then the earth yea or then the mettals which are digged out of the earth I see not but that he who called fire from heauen to satisfie his commaundement might not much more haue bidden the Magistrate who beareth the sword to draw out his sword for him against any King in the world whatsoeuer For which opinion of his this firmament or strength onely is set down by him That it skils not much amongst wise men what is done by those things which are alike in moment and waight I will not heere adde the fourth fifth argument which he vseth out of the sacred histories touching Ozia and Athalia because Bellarmine hath referred theÌ„ among the examples whereon wee must deale in their place But these are those Paraleipomena to which Bellarmine doth remit vs and which it is no wonder that he who is both a subtill and sharpe disputer and a vehement Oratour did onely lightly report but did not transferre into his owne worke seeing they doe abound with so many and notorious faults that a man would thinke they were written not by a Diuine and a man exercised in the Scriptures but by some prophane Smatterer abusing intemperately Diuinity and the Scriptures so very little is there in those things which he assumeth in them for argument which is consonant and agreeing with the subiect in question CHAP. XXXVI First then Sanders is mistaken and is very farre wide in this that he imagineth that the Synagogue had any stroke in the abdication of Saul For it is most manifest that the whole businesse was commanded denounced and in the issue accomplished and executed by the extraordinarie iudgement and commandement of God from whom is all raigne and power without any ordinarie iurisdiction of the Priests or of the Synagogue whereby it is cleere that the comparison of the Church of Christ the Synagogue or of Samuel and the Pope is very impertinently and ignorantly made by him in this point For although we confesse that which is the truth that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is no lesse yea that it is faire more then of the Synagogue yet therfore I meane out of the comparison of the power authoritie of each Church it doth not follow that the Pope may depriue a King neglecting or contemning the Commandements of God of the right of his Kingdome instal another in his place because the Synagogue was neuer endued with that power For it is no where read in the Old Testament that the Synagogue of the Iewes or the Hâ—â—â— Priest thereof for the time did abrogate the Kingdome from any lawfull King of Israel of Iudaea being neuer so wickeâ— distnate and ciuell or depriued him of the â—ight oâ— the Kingdome as hee saith and substituted another in his place Whence it falles out that no argument from thence nor no example may bee drawne in the new Law I let passe that Samuel although he were a great Prophet yet hee was not the chiefe Priest nay not a Priest at all but onely a Leuite who therefore could doe nothing against Saul by an ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction much lesse by the authoritie of a secular iudgement because he had publikely laid that downe before when the people demanded a King Therefore Samuel in the execution of this businesse did onely performe a bare ministerie almost against his will and striuing both with praiers and teares against the same and hauing receiued a speciall charge he discharged an extraordinarie embassie being sent from the Lord as the Messenger of his diuine iudgement And that appeareth by this that when he came to the King he said Giue me leaue and I will tell thee what the Lord hath spoken to me by night Therefore he may forbeare this argument which is to small purpose drawne from the extraordinarie ministery of Samuel and the reiection of Saul in regard that the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or Pope hath no comparison or proportion no conueniencie or similitude with the same God presently reiected Saul and tooke the Kingdome from his posteritie but he suffered other Kings who seemed to be much more wicked then Saul to raigne ouer his people and to conuey the Kingdome to their children So hath it seemed good in his eies God the Lord of reuenge hath done freely and he hath done all whatsoeuer he would neither is any other reason to belong it He hath mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will be hardneth Neither may any man say vnto him Why hast thou made me thus Must we beleeue the same of the Church or of the Pope They haueth it certaine limits and bounds which they cannot passe The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by Lawes saith Ioh de 〈…〉 And therefore it is not permitted neither to the Church nor to the Ruler thereof the Pope by an absolute libertie and after the maner of God to determine of all kingdomes and businesses and to dispose of all things at their pleasure That onely is lawfull for them which is comprehended in the holy writings or traditions of the Apostles teaching their authoritie Which seeing it is so there is none that hath any skill in reasoning but may plainly see that the argument deriued from those things which Samuel did can by no meanes be concluded to establish the Popes authoritie vnlesse it be deduced either from the ordinarie power of the Synagogue wherein notwithstanding Samuel was not the chiefe to the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or from the extraordinarie ministerie of Samuel to the extraordinarie
ministerie likewise of the Pope whereof the former from the Synagogue to the Church although it may be rightly concluded in forme as they say yet it commeth short for the purpose because it offendeth in matter because the Synagogue hath neuer had any temporall power ouer Kings And the latter is not of force but in that case that the same may befall to the Pope now which befell to Samuel in those times viz. that as the Lord spake to Samuel touching Saul so he should speake to the Pope by name about the abdication of some certaine King and of substituting an other in his place For in this case it cannot bee denied but that the authoritie of the Pope is equall to Samuels and his Ministerie alike in executing the Commandement of God But if not I meane if the Lord hath not expresly spoken to the Pope in his eare I pray you how can it be that when he desires by his owne proper authoritie to thrust any King out of his Throne that he should maintaine that hee doth it by the example of Samuel whom God did delegate by a speciall charge and an extraordinarie mission to signifie his decree touching the abdication of Saul Samuel knew certainely that God had reiected Saul and all his race that they should not raigne for the Lord told him so much But the Pope knowes not whether God haue reiected that Prince whom he desires to depose vnlesse God hath specially reuealed it to him Seeing there is nothing more certaine by the Scriptures then that God doth for diuers causes tolerate wicked Kings and contemners of his word and doth cause them to raigne for the time whom when it pleaseth him he either conuerteth to him or euerteth and ouerthroweth And it happeneth often that they whom the Pope who iudgeth according to outward appearance pronounceth vnworthie to raigne by their present conditions and state of life those the Lord to whom all things are present declareth to be most worthie to raigne their mindes being conuerted to holinesse and grace whereof not â—ong agone we haue seen a memorable example now in our age For who knoweth not I speake it to the honour and glorie of this great King that HENRY the IV. who now most happily gouerneth the sterne of the Kingdome of France and I pray God he may gouerne long was not onely excommunicate by Gregorie and Sixtus Popes but also was so reiected and abandoned and depriued of all right of Kingdome that by their censures they declared him vncapable of any kingdome or gouernment whatsoeuer whose iudgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorne and demonstrated that the King which was reproued by them was most worthie of a worthie Kingdome Seeing then these things stand thus and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God how can the Pope know and vnderstand the pleasure and will of God vnlesse like vnto Samuel he be aduertised before Therefore that which Sanders saith That King who shall refuse to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope c. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to excute those things which the Lord shall command him by speciall reuelation For otherwise what shall we say Philip the Faire did he therefore disdaine to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope because he would not heare Boniface swelling with a most proud ambition that it should bee thought that he might bee by Boniface depriued of the right of his crowne and an other to bee substituted in his place What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not heare Iulius the II. being complete armed and playing the souldier rather then the Pope did hee seeme to haue contemned God speaking by the mouth of the Pope so farre is both he and his fauoureâ—s should deserue to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdomes at the pleasure of man that boiled inwardlie with a priuate hatred against him To belieue such matters good Lord should I tearme it ignorance or madnesse But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by vs. His second argument to confesse plainely the weaknesse of my witte I doe not well vnderstand to what purpose it aimeth For that it may haue some strength and force to proue the point which is in hand and to bee consequent and agreable to that which is concluded we must of force admit two most false suppositions as true and necessary Whereof one is That they who either did foretell any thing that should come to passe by reuelation from God or by his commaundement willed any thing to bee done might by their own right I meane by their proper authority and ordinary vertue of then office without any speciall reuelation or commaundement from God commaunde the same whatsoeuer it was to be done or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselues As though Ahias the Silonite whome God had sent to Ieroboam with a speciall charge that hee should tell him that he will giue him ten Tribes out of the Kingdome of Salomon in these words Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel Behold I will rent the Kingdome out of the hand of Salomon and will giue theeten Tribes As though I say Ahias without any such expresse commaundement of God without any speciall reuelation might haue called Ieroboam or any other into Salomons Kingdome or into part thereof Then which nothing can bee said more falsly or foolishly And the other supposition is that all Priests and Prophets of the old law had authority to bestow to take away kingdoms so farre forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people which also is most false neither is there to bee found in all the scriptures any example or steppe or taken of the same Seeing then the whole force of this second argument is so grounded on these two false suppositions that it cannot bee rightly concluded except they be granted that it is euident enough that there is no firme consequence ápotestate delegatia Principe ad potestatem ordi 〈◊〉 that is from the authority of a Committee from a Prince to the authority of an ordinary officer who doth not see by his owne iudgement without much Logicke that all this busines which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias is as farre as may be from that which he hath vndertaken to proue The third argument also is euen of the same stuffe for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias for the speciall execution of certaine busines to the ordinary office of the Pope or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be Elias at the Lords commaundement by name for that Sanders omitted which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame annointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Eliseus a Prophet for him Ergo the Pope may take away and giue kingdoms and principalities as hee shall thinke good For
generallie to all those things which are made by nature or Art or hand whereas notwithstanding as touching humane actions it is certaine that that sentence hath place onely in those things which men doe of their owne accord or vpon a commission receiued with free liberty of execution as for example that he is called a murderer who by villany hath beene the cause of any mans death by any meane or instrument because in such a crime it skilleth not what is made by those things quae eiusdem ponderis momenti sunt But in the case wherein any thing is commended strictly and by name to any mans trust to be performed in a certaine manner and after a certaine forme the lawes doe not allow the Committee to execute the same any other way as appeareth plainely by the place which I related aboue and infinite others of the Ciuill and Pontificiall law His other errour is that he thinketh there is no ods nor difference if wicked men be strooken with a diuine thunderbolt from God or with force of weapons by the power of men because he saith that they haue both one weight for although there be one effect of all extreme punishments that is the death and destruction of the condemned yet there is much consideration to bee had by what manner and meane the same is executed vpon the guilty because there bee degrees as of crimes so of paines and hereby it commeth to passe that by the kind of the vltion and griceousnesse or lightnes of the punishment we iudge of the hainousnesse of the offence by the proportion and resemblance of the punishment with the fault For the distribution of punishments and rewards doth require a Geometricall proportion The Poet saith pretily adsit Regula peccatis quae poenas â—roget ae quas Nescutica dignum horribili sectere fligello But Where greater punishments doe follow let him bee corrected with greater punishment Excellently saith S. Augustine As al other things Who doubteth but that this is the more hainous offence which is punished more seuerely Therefore doth he verie vndiscreetelie determine that all punishments being taken by sword by fire by famine and by other means are of the same waight and heauines that he might conclude that the Prophet had discharged his dutie if hee had procured to haue them flame with the earthly sword whome the Lord said he would strike with a thunderbolt from heauen Who doth not know that the anger and reuenge of almighty God doth shine much more brightlie in punishments not which are inflicted after the ordinary manner of men but are sent strangelie miraculously from heauen or who can weigh matters so vneuenly in his iudgement as to say that they perished by punishments equall for grieuousnesse who being swallowed vp by the gaping earth descended aliue into hell as well as those who are taken away by the ordinarie or extraordinarie punishments of mans lawes And hitherto I thinke I haue said enough of these reasons of Sanders which were omitted by Bellarmine not without cause Now let vs returne out of this by-path to Bellarmine againe CHAP. XXXVII HItherto haue I bent the sharpenesse of my best vnderstanding to enquire with diligence into all the reasons which Bellarmine or Sanders haue touching the temporall authoritie of the Pope Therefore now it remaineth that with the like care and indeauour I conuert my mind and hand to examine the examples propounded by Bellarmine which truely is but a poore and a weake kind of proofe For he pretends that his opinion is proued two manner of wayes by reasons and by examples I could haue wished with all my heart that hee had brought forth stronger reasons the affection which I beare to the Sea Apostolique doth so affect and possesse me that I doe very earnestly desire that all the authority which this author doth attribute vnto her may bee also allowed by the best right that can be But wee haue heard his reasons already now let vs heare his examples The first is saith he 2. Paralip 26. Where we read that Ozia the King when hee vsurped the Priests office was by the high Priest cast out of the temple and being stroke by God with a leprosie for the same offence was forced to goe out of the City and to leaue his kingdome to his Sonne For it is plaine that hee was put out of the City and gouernement of the Kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest For we reade in the 13. of Leuit. Whosoeuer saith the Law shall bee desiled with the leprosie and is separated by the iudgement of the Priest hee shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing then this was a law in Israel withall wee read 2 Paralip 26. that the King dwelled without the City in a solitary house and that his sonne did iudge within the City the people of the land we are constrained to say that he was separated by the iudgement of the Priest and consequently depriued of the authority of raigning If therefore a Priest could in times past iudge a King for a corporall leprosie and depriue him of his Kingdome why may not he doe it now for a spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by the leprosie as Augustine teachâ—th in quaest Euangel lib. 2. quaest 40. especially seeing 1. Cor. 10. Paul doth say that all happened to the Iewes in figures Thus he I haue often wondred and yet cannot leaue wondring that men famous for the opinion of learning should commit their thoughts to writing in so sleight and homelie a fashion that a man would thinke they had not read the Authors which they commend or haue not fully vnderstood those they haue read or that of set purpose they would corrupt their meaning which fault is very common in our age wherein most of the Writers following the credit of other men doe draw the testimonies and authorities of their assertions not from the Fountaines themselues but from the Riuers and Pipes being corruptly deriued by the negligence and fault of other men so as looke what the first haue either malitiously or negligently detorted and wrested to another sense that others trusting to their search and iudgement doe transcribe into their bookes for certaine and vndoubted testimonies Which although it be very seldome found in Bellarmine being a faithfull and a cleere Author yet it cannot be denied but that hee following vnaduisedly Sanders and others hath not erred a little in the three Chapters of the affirming the Popes temporall authoritie especially in propounding the former example and this following I prooued long agoe in my bookes contra Monarchomachos that it was most false That Ozia was depriued of the authoritie of his gouernment by the iudgement of the Priest For in very truth there is nothing more expresly deliuered in the whole historie of the Kings then that â—zias from the sixteenth yeere of his age wherein hee beganne his raigne remained
King continually vnto the 68. yeere which was the end of his life and that hee was not any time depriued of the authoritie of his gouernement Indeed it is true hee dwelt apart in a house by it selfe and therefore by reason of his sicknesse hee could not execute those duties of a King which consist in action but that tooke not from him his interest in his kingdome nor authoritie of gouernment Otherwise wee must denie that children being inaugurated and crowned as in time pastâ— Ioas and Iosias and men of sawfull age are any Kings if once they fall into any grieuous disease of minde or bodie seeing they are hindred by their youth these by their sicknesse from the procuration and gouernment of the Kingdome which consisteth in action For the Scripture saith In the 27. yeere of Ieroboam King of Israel raigned Azarias who was called both Ozias and â—acharias the sonne of Amasias King of Iuda he was sixteene yeeres of age when hee began to raigne and raigned 52. yeeres in Ierusalem And againe in the same Chapter In the 52 yeere of Azariah King of Iuda raigned Phaâ—ee the sonne of Romelias ouer Israel in Samaria And Iosephus 〈◊〉 that this Izariah or Oziah died in the 68 yeerâ— of his age and the 52. of his raigne ' If therefore Ozias began to raigne being 16. yeeres of age and raigned 52. yeeres as the Scripture witnesseth and died in the 68. yeere what space I pray you in his life can be â—ound wherein he was iudged and depriued of his right in his Kingdome In the meane time his sonne was Curator or Regent to him as they are wont to haue â— qui in ea causasunt vt superesse rebus suis non possint For it is added in that storie Ioatham the sonne of the King gouerned the palace and ruled the house of the King and iudged the people of the Land Marke I pray you that Ioatham is called the sonne of the King in the life and sicknesse of his Father and Gouernour of the Palace and Ruler of the House of the King Now hee iudged the people because iudgements could not come to the King through the force of his disease and the separation by the prescript of the Law of God as Lyranus teacheth in that place To be short the Scripture saith And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Field of the Kings Sepulchers because he was leprous and Ioatham his sonne raigned in his stead Marke againe that Ioatham beginneth not to raigne but after the death of his Father Therefore although it bee true that Ozias by reason of his leprosie was separate by the iudgement of the Priest because it was expresly prouided by the Law of God yet it is not true that hee was depriued of the authoritie of raigning or enforced to renounce his Kingdome to his sonne as these men falsely doe auerre The authority of raigning and the administration of a Kingdome doe differ very much and no lesse then in the ciuill Law proprietie and possession The authoritie is alwaies in the person of the King and is ioined with the right of the Crowne but the gouernment and procuration or administration may fall into other mens hands so as one may be King and another the Gouernour Whence they who in the minoritie or diseases of Kings doe beare the highest place of gouernment in the Kingdome are honoured with the title of Gouernour Regent Tutor Protector or some such like and they propound nor handle any publike affaire in their owne name but in the name and authoritie of the King being either infant or sicklie Therefore this example of Ozias is so farre from helping anything to this temporall authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings as it maketh very much for to impugne and ouerthrow the same For if as he reporteth out of the Apostle and wee confesse that all things befell to the Iewes in figures and if the corporall leprosie for which a man was separated from the multitude of the children of Israel and dwelt alone without the campe was a figure of the spirituall leprosie that is of heresie by Augustine his testimonie to bee short if the Priesthood of Aaroa was a figure of the Priesthood of the new Law out of these figures two arguments are appositely drawne to this question whereof the former doth notably confirme the spirituall authority of the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes the other prooueth that this temporall authoritie of his whereof we speake is altogether commentitious and forged vsurped and contrarie to the Law of God The former argument is framed thus As the Priests in times past banished out of the Temple King Ozias being strucke with the leprosie that he might dwell without the Citie so at this day the Pope may iudge and by excommunication separate from the communion of the faithfull a King infected with heresie which is a spirituall leprosie and so constraine him to dwell without the Citie that is without the Church Catholike vntill hee be cleansed from his leprosie that is vntill hee haue absured his heresie But if such a leprosie sticke by him till death hee is not to bee buried in the Sepulchers of the Kings that is in the Church but in the field because hee is leprous that is to say an hereticke Now that I said that the Pope might separate an hereticke King by excommunication from the communion of the faithful it must bee vnderstood of the spirituall separation of soules and not of bodies For subiects ought not to denie their obedience to an excommunicate King The second argument may rightly bee concluded in this forme As the iudgement of the Priest of a corporall leprosie in the old Law wrought nothing but the separation of the leprous and relegation without the Campe or Citie and as the iudgement of the Priest touching the leprosie of Azaria or Ozia could not take from him the right of his Kingdome but onely imposed on him a necessitie to dwell by himselfe without the Citie for in that he did not actually as they say gouerne the Kingdome that fell out not through the sentence of the Priest who iudged of the leprosie but the force of the continuall disease of his bodie so also at this day the censure and sentence of the Pope whereby hee iudgeth and declareth a King to bee an hereticke although it cause a King to remaine without the Citie of God that is without the Catholike Church as hath beene said yet it cannot take from him the right and authority to raigne and so the figure doth very fitly conuene with the figured For in these figures of the old Testament the image of the authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings is not onely drawne in lineaments but fully expressed to the life that if any fit argument may be drawne from the shadow to the body from the figure to the figured none can more euidently or assuredly bee fitted then these from the constitution
THe sixth is of Zacharie saith hee who being desired by the Nobilitie of France deposed Childerique and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus to be created King in his place Before I speake any thing of this example it is worth my paines to vnfold the darke storie touching the same and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie ioining the circumstances on both sides together with the opinion for proofe whereof it is brought and by this meane it may more easily appeare to the Reader how small strength it hath to confirme the proposition of the aduersaries First of all therefore in that story it is worthy the obseruation that Childerique and diuers other Meroningians that were Kings before him raigning without any authoritie at all in their Kingdomes had nothing but the vaine and idle name of a King For the treasure and power of the State were in the hands of the Officers who were called the Maiors of the Palace and who indeede swaied the whole gouernment of the Kingdome who were so much aboue the Kings and ordered and gouerned them as the King possessed nothing of his owne besides the idle name of the King and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life which the Maior of the Palace made him in his discretion but one poore Lordship in the Country of a small reuenew and in that a house where hee kept a few seruants to attend him for his necessarie seruices and to wait vpon him as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemaine If any then doe looke more neerely into the matter he shall finde that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France one who like the King in the â—hesse had onely the name of a King but no kingly authoritie as Atmoinus speaketh but the other who was called the Maior of the Palace in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdome He in name onely was vnder the King but in authoritie and power ouer the King so as he wanted nothing but the name for the full and absolute Maiestie of ruling and raigning which also at the last was giuen him by the people that the soueraigne gouernment which he swaied might be signified by the title of a soueraigne honour Therfore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel father of Pipine who ouerthrew a huge Armie of Saracens rushing into France out of Spaine King Charles saith hee hauing beaten and ouercome the armies of his enemies vnder Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victorie returned home in safetie into France the seat of his gouernment Marke how he calles the Maior of the palace a King by reason of that royall authority which he bare Secondly in that storie is to bee obserued that the Nobilitie of France being weary of the slothfulnesse of their idle Kings did with a wonderfull consent conuert their eies and hearts to Pipine Maior of the Palace sonne to Charles which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdome that hee openly without nicenesse affected the name of a King which that hee might more easily compasse without mislike and displeasure of the Commons he resolued that the Pope was first to be dealt withall by an Embassadour and his assent to be required iudging indeede as the truth was that if the Pope should giue his assent that the Commons would easily rest in his iudgement by reason of the holinesse and reuerend opinion of the See Apostolique Thirdly we must vnderstand that Zacharie the Pope was generally aduised withall in the cause of the Kings which raigned at that time in France whether ought to bee called King he who had only the name of a King and no royall authoritie or he who by his industrie and wisdome did manage and gouerne all the affaires of the State and that hee the same Pope answered generally againe that it were better that he should be called King in whom the soueraigne authoritie did reside by which answer the Nobilitie being induced doe elect Pipine King There is no question but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi that is in particular that Childerique was to bee abandoned who carried onely the false name of a King and that Pipine was in his place to bee aduanced to the Crowne But I suppose that hee answered so generally for that the proposition being deliuered in generall tearmes carried no note of any certaine person and left to the Nobilitie of France their iudgement entire and free to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique but gaue his assent with the Deposers But because his consent was especially regarded therfore certaine Historians doe precisely say that hee deposed Childerique Lastly in that storie it must be seriously and diligentlie weighed that Zacharie the Pope hauing heard Pipinus his Embassadours touching the change of the Kingdome and deposition of Childerique iudged it to bee a matter of such noueltie and difficultie also as at the first hee durst not entertaine the thought of so great an enterprise although that by this time he had vnderstood sufficiently that the sloth and idlenesse of the Merouingians did greatly endammage the Church and Christian Common-wealth vntill such time as hee was certainely perswaded and saw that the whole nobility of France did fauour Pipin and desire him for their King and moreouer that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merouingians without children so dull and blockish That he could not tell how to grieue for the losse of his kingdome as was fit for him neither was there any that would mone his case These were the inducements which being ioined with a speciall loue affection which the Pope did beare to Pipine for that he and his father Charles had with many good offices deserued well of the Church of Rome and Apostolicke Sea did moue Zacharie to essent to the French who desired this change of their Kings These things although they be in this manner written touching this businesse yet haue we great cause to doubt of the iustice of that fact I know that Bellarmine in other places out of too much good opinion of the equity of this fact of Zachary doth boldly affirme that no sober man wil deny that that Act was iust But he alledgeth nothing but that the wisest man liuing may affirm for all that that it was iniust I say he brings no probable and forcible reason whereby a wise man may perswade himselfe that the Pope did iustly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke since that in no case we ought to doe ill that good although it be very great may come thereof Now wee haue sufficienly declared that for a lawfull King to bee deposed by his owne subiects or to consent to the deposers seeing hee hath God onely aboue him to whome onely he is bound to yeeld account of his actions is by it selfe and simply euill And the two reasons which he vseth
to iustifie the iustice of that deposition are so vncertaine and friuolous that I wonder that they were ouer propounded by him For first in that he measures the equity of this fact of Zachary by the euent of the businesse as though the action must be accounted iust because that change of the Kingdome had prosperous and happy successe especially saith he since the euent doth teach that that change was most happy it is so triuiall and childish that it was not to be conceiued much lesse alleadged in writing by such a man Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab euentu facta not anda putes For what I pray you Was not afterwards in the same Kingdome of France the change from the Carolouingiâ— to the Capeuingii made with great iniustice For Hugo Capet a man of a great mind and might in the state when none was able to represse or encounter his practises vsurped the Kingdom by force arms obtained the crown taking the true heire and casting him into prison For which fact Gaguinus calleth him an vsurper of the Kingdome And yet all the world doth know that that change was most happy and as some thinke done by the secrete iudgement of God that Pipine who had wrongfully taken the Kingdome from the Merouingij should at the last suffer the like wrong in his posterity Therefore the Carolouingians did not so long hold the Kingdome if they bee compared with the Capeuingians And the Capeuingians haue the gouernement much longer established in their house and as J hope will haue for euer The second reason also is no whit stronger which he draweth from the holinesse of Boniface the Bishoppe who at the commandement of Zacharie anointed and crowned Pipine King Adde saith he to these that hee who anointed and crowned King Pipine by the Popes commandement was a most holy man viz. B. Boniface Bishoppe and Martyr who surely would neuer haue beene the auther of iniustice and of a publicke offence This I say is a very light argument and of no waight For in that businesse Boniface was onely a Minister of the Apostolicke commaundement and therefore it was no preiudice to his holinesse which he executed at the Popes commaundement for he was bound to execute the Popes sentence although he knew it to be iniust and therefore although the iniustice of the commaundement had made Zacharie guilty yet Boniface had beene declared to bee innocent by the order of seruing and necessity of obedience Therefore Boniface might with a safe conscience fulfill the commaundement of Zacharie though it were iniust But this Zacharie was a good Pope It may bee so wee denie it not so was Dauid a good King and holy and Theodosius a good Emperour Marcellinus and Liberius were both good Popes and yet not one of these but committed some things worthy of blame Why then might not Zacharie also serue his owne malice or loue and after the manner of men in some part violate iustice It is well knowne that Zacharie in those times did stand in extream need of Pipines aid against the iniuries of Aistulphus the Longobardes and was not that a strong engine to batter iustice thinke you loue hatred and a proper gaine make that a Iudge many times doth not know the truth But to striue no longer about the equity of this act of Zacharie let it bee as they would haue it let vs grant that that Act was most iust what strength doe they winne by this to make good the temporall authority which they giue to the Pope ouer Princes is it any more then that by the patterne of that action the Pope may now doe as then Zacharie did which is that hee may giue his consent to a people for the like causes respects to put down their king that is to say if he bee a King that hath onely the Name and not the authority or power of a King who also hath no issue like to die in orbitie and of mind so slothfull and so blockish that hee may bee deposed without any bloudshed and of a Prince may bee made a priuate person no man moaning his fortune no man following his party For an argument from an example is nothing vnlesse the cases and causes be alike in each respect Therfore this example of Zacharie What maketh it to establish that infinite authority wheron the Popes relying in the following ages haue attempted and sometimes gloried that they could vndertake mighty Kings abounding in all manner of wealth excelling in strength both of mind and body not at the request of the people nor by consent onely but of their proper motion by warres by murther by Schismes by great miseries of the Christian common-wealth to depriue them of their Kingdomes and to spoile them of their crownes and scepters Will any wise man iudge that this is lawfull for them to doe by the example of Zacharias his Act But of this matter enough CHAP. XLII THe death of the Author enuied vs this last part of the Booke FINIS a 〈…〉 b 〈◊〉 111. ad 〈…〉 Deo reâ—ertur dist 9. can 10. * Thâ— Bozim d Lib. 2. cap. 1â— e Lib. 5. cap. vlt. * Matth. 8. Luk. 9. Rom. 13. a Can. duo sunt can cum ad verum 96. dist cap. nouit de iudic cap. per ve nerabilem qui filij sunt legit b Cap. 6. c Lib. 2. de liber Christ. cap. 2. * Matth. 22. Mark 12. d In câ—p inquisitions de sent excom e Dict. can cum ad verum 96. dist i 1 L. 2. C. cov de legat k L. Sâ—re leges D. de legib * Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap. 3. Lib. 5. de Rom. 〈◊〉 â—ap 3. * See the admonition to the reader m Iob. 5. ca. 7. Hierar Eccl. l. b. 1. de pon Rom. cap. 29. * At Rom. 13. q Iâ—b 5. de Rom. Pont. C. 7. g L. illud D. ad leg Aquil. h Act. 5. * 1. Cor. 5. * Cap 14. * Lib. 2. Epist. 61. indict 11. 2 Serm 29 le 〈…〉 tom 10. Ex. 〈…〉 5. 〈◊〉 Regin Aug. 〈◊〉 5. contra Reg. Franc. b Lib. 5. cap 2. c Cap. â—ler de immunit ec l. in 6. d Clem. de imunit eccl vbi glos â—d notaâ— e Lib 1 hist 〈…〉 f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium g In vita Bonif. 〈◊〉 h Lib â— hist. in vita Philip. Pul. * See the admonition to the reader Cap. per venerabilem qui fil sunt legit k Can. ficut Can. excommunicatos xi q. 3. l Cap. 21. m Lib. 3 contra Epist. Parm. c. 2. n Psal. 118. a Lib 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. b Lib. 1. de indict 13. epist. 31. e I. 5 § generaliter D. de don inter vir vxor f Panor in cap. ludum 54. de elect cap. 〈◊〉 pridem 〈◊〉 pact a cap. 18. See the admonition to the Reader a Lib 5
list the Annals and Records of all Nations let him read through all Scriptures and Stories he shall finde amongst them no one step whereby it may be gathered that those christian Princes when they gaue their names to the Church did submit their Scepters to the Pope and did specially and by name a bandon their soueraigne temporall Magistracie But it must appeare that Princes wittingly and knowingly did descend and giue themselues into the dition and authoritie temporall of the Pope or we must confesse that as much as concerned regall dignitie they remained after Baptisme in the same power and condition wherein they were before they receiued holy imitation of Christianitie for as he witnesseth himselfe the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and peculiar fee. But before they gaue their name to Christ of right and in fact as he saith they exercised ciuill authoritie ouer the Pope and might lawfully iudge him in temporall Cases therefore they might likewise doe it lawfully after Baptisme Which if it be so it cannot be by any meanes that they should be iudged by him in temporall matters seeing it is impossible that any man should bee superiour and inferiour in the same kind of authoritie and in respect of one and the same thing It is true that those christian Princes for the reuerence they bare not onely to the Pope but also to all other Bishops yea and Priests also did very seldome put that iudgement in practise But this argues a want of will onely and not of power also Wherefore as a Consul or President when he yeelds himselfe to adoption transferres none of those rights which belong to him by his office into the familie and power of his adoptiue father neither can transferre them but reserues them all entirely to himselfe so Princes in the beginning hauing deliuered themselues into the spirituall adoption of the ecclesiastike Hierarchie could by that act loose none of those things which belonged to the right of a kingdome and their publike ciuill estate for that the nature of these powers is deuided so as although being yoaked and coupled together they did very htlv and handsomely frame together in the same christian Common-wealth yet neither of them as it is such is subiect or master to the other and neither doth necessarilie follow and accompanie the other but each may be both obtained and also lost or kept without the other But now because the learned Bellarmine is very much delighted with similitudes and besides prooues thi common opinion de indirect a potestate temporals summ◠Pontificis by no testimonie either of Scriptures or of ancient Fathers but onely by certaine reasons fetched a simili a very poore and weake foundation to build a demonstration vpon I thinke I shall not doe amisse by a similitude of much more fitnesse to confirme also our opinion of this matter The sonne of the familie although he goe to warres and beare publike office and charge is by the law of God and man subiect to his Father in whose sacred houshold power he is yet abiding And againe the father who hath this power ouer his sonne is subiect to his sonne as a magistrate but 〈◊〉 another kind of power For the one as he is a Parent challengeth authority ouer his sonne whereby he may correct chastise and punish him offending and committing any thing against the lawes of the family or practising any thing against himselfe or otherwise doing that which is vnworthy and vnfitting a good sonne not by the right of a Magistrate but by the authority of his fatherly power and not with euery kind of punishment but only with certaine which are allowed by the law Therefore if his sonne deserue ill he may disherit him cast him out of the house depriue him of the right of the family and kindred and chastise him with other domesticall remedies But he can not disanull his Magistracy nor take from him his goods in the campe nor condemne him by a publike iudgement neither inflict any other mulct or paine due for his fault by the law either directly or indirectly because this course exceedeth the measure and iurisdiction of a fatherly power But the other although a sonne and obliged by the fathers bond yet as he is a Magistrate in publike authority ruleth ouer his father and in publike affaires and euen in priuate so be it they be not domesticall may command him as well as other Citizens If there be a sonne of a family saith Vlpian and beare an office he may constraine his father in whose power he is suspectum dicentem haereditatem adire restituers From hence if the sonne of the family be Consul or President he may either be emancipated or giuen into adoption before himselfe For which cause the father is no lesse bound then if he were a stranger not only to obey his sonne being in office but also to rise to him and to honor him with all the respect and honor which belongeth to the Magistrate In the very same manner the Pope who is the spirituall father of all Christians by his fatherly Ecclesiastike power as the Vicar of Christ doth command Kings and Princes as well as the rest of the faithfull and in that respect if Kings commit any thing against God or the Church he may sharply chastise them with spirituall punishments cast them out of the house and family of God and disinherit them of the kingdome of heauen most fearefull and terrible punishments for christian hearts to thinke on because all these things are proper to his fatherly power spirituall But neither can he take from them temporall principality and domination nor inflict ciuill punishments vpon them because he hath obtained no ciuill and temporall iurisdiction ouer them by which such manner of chastisement ought to be exercised as also for that the fatherly power spirituall wherewith the Pope is furnished is very far diuided from the ciuill and temporall in ends offices and euen in persons also For God as he hath committed spirituall power to the Pope and the other Priests so also hath he giuen the ciuill by an euerlasting 〈◊〉 tion to the King and the Magistrates which be vnder him There is no power but of God To this place belongs that ancient glosse which the Cardinall of Cusa writes that it was assured to the Canon Hadrianus Papa 63. in which Canon it is deliuered that the Pope with the whole Synod granted to Charles the great the honor of the Patriciate For the glosse said that a Patrician was a father to the Pope in temporalities as the Pope was his father in spiritualities And the same Cardinall in the same booke speaking of the electers of the Germane Emperors from whence the electors saith he who in the time of Henry the second were appointed by the common consent of all the Almans and others who were subiect to the Empire haue a radicall power from that common consent