destroied Iulianus Whom if you consider their valour and resolution the vse and experience of armes if opportunitie the easie accesse of souldiers to their Commanders in those times if disposition the feruent heat of their mindes burning with desire of Martyrdome and vndertaking any thing for the defence of the faith would haue made them much more ready and eager to deliuer the Church by some notorious action from the treacherie and tyrannie of such a villanous person much more I say then any precipitate rashnesse could set on a brainsicke and furious monke What may we thinke that the Christians of that time did heare the famous trumpets of the Gospel Athanasius Basilius both the Gregories Cyrillus Epihanius Hilarius Hosius and many other Bishops excelling in vertue and learning who by reason of their learning could not be ignorant what interest the Church had ouer Princes and if they had knowen and vnderstood the same by reason of their great sanctitie of life and constancie in aduersitie would not haue held their peace and dissembled the same in so importunate a businesse to the Christian common-weale What may wee thinke that those diuine Prelates taught the people that there was no remedie against that Apostata but in patience and teares for so saith Nazianzenus These things saith he did Iulianus intend he speaketh of those things which the Apostata meditated against the Church as his minions and witnesnesses of his counsels did publish notwithstanding he was restrained by the mercy of God and the teares of the Christians who were in great abundance and by many powred out when as they had this onely remedie against the Persecutors I beseech you Reader that you would obserue consider Nazianzenus well in this place He affirmeth that the Christians that is the Church had no remedie besides teares against the persecution of Iulianus when as notwithstanding it is certaine that they had at their seruice the whole armie of Iulianus Therefore surely this Pope who for his singular excellencie was called the Diuine did not thinke that the Church hath any power ouer a most vngodly Emperour to raise the Christian army against him otherwise it were false that Christians or the Church had no other remedie but teares against a persecutor for they had an armie which being commanded by the Church would easily for the cause of God haue fallen away from Iulianus Now that which we said of Constantius and Iulianus that without great difficultie they might haue beene brought into order by the Church and depriued of Scepters and life without any harme to the people the same is much more apparent in Valens and Valentinianus the yoonger For the chiefe Commanders and Captaines of Valens his armie were good Catholikes by whom hee managed all his warres being himselfe an idle and slothfull Prince and those were Terentius Traianus Arintheus Uictor and others who constantly professed the Catholike faith and boldly vpbraided the Emperour to his face with his heresie and impietie against God but in so religious a libertie they held their hands neither did their heate and anger proceed beyond the bounds of admonition because they knew it was their dutie onely to tell the Prince his faultes but not to punish the same Therefore in all matters which belonged to temporall gouernment they yeelded obedience to this heretike whom they might easily haue remoued and to the great good of the afflicted Church haue reduced backe againe the whole Monarchie to Ualentinianus a Catholike Prince from whom it came Could not these Commanders of his forces conclude a league amongst themselues against their Prince being an heretike if it had beene lawfull for them so to doe Was it not more profitable for the Church that an heretike Emperour should not gouerne Catholikes Or did the Church all that time want learned and watchfull Pastors and by that meanes either neglected or did not vnderstand her temporall interest for what which onely remaines to bee said no age did euer beare Christians more obedience and dutifull to their Prelates then that did that if so bee the Church had wanted not the power to sway Princes in temporall matters but the execution onely of that power the people and armie would not haue beene long before they had deliuered her from the tyranny of Constatius Iulianus and Valens To which the worthy testimonie of S. Augustine giues faith registred among the Canōs Iulianus saith he was an Infidel Emperour Was he not an Apostata vniust an Idolater Christian souldiers seruedan Infidell Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none but him that was in heauen When he would haue them to worship Idols to sacrifice they preferred God before him But when he said draw foorth the Companies get you against that countrey presently they obeied For they distinguished their eternall from the temporall Lord And yet for their eternall Lord his sake they were subiect euen to a temporall Lord. Who doth not see in this place that it was the easiest matter in the world for the Church euery maner of way to chastise Iulianus if the had had any temporall power ouer him For then the cause of Christ had come in question in which case the souldiers would preferre Christ before the Emperour that is the eternall Lord before the temporall Lord for the Churches cause is the cause of Christ. Therefore either the Bishops of Rome or the Popes and euen the whole Church did then beleeue for certaine that they had no temporall iurisdiction in any sort ouer secular Princes or surely they were wanting to their office nor did they so carefully prouide for the flock committed to their charge as now after many ages our last Popes haue done who maintaine very earnestly that it belongeth to a part of their Pastorall office to chastise all Princes and Monarches not onely for heresie or schisme but also for other causes and that with temporall punishment and euen to spoile them of their Empires and Kingdomes if it shall please them Whereas otherwise neither they are to be compared with those first Bishops for holinesse of life and learning and the Christian people in these times is not so obedient as in those first times they were Wherefore if we loue the truth we must confesse that no man can either accuse or excuse the Bishops of both times in this point without preuarication or calumniation the praise of each will turne to the dispraise of the other But let vs goe forward CHAP. VIII VAlentinian the yonger of all who to this day gouerned not onely an Empire but Kingdome or any Principalitie might most easily haue beene coerced and bridled by the Church for he might haue beene not onely thrust out of his Empire at the commandement of the chiefe Bishop that is the Bishop of Rome but euen at the becke and pleasure of a poore Bishop of Millane Ambrose be forsaken of his owne souldiers and guard and be reduced to the state of
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
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
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
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
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
Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest as the aduersary dreameth because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry and Childerike who succeeded no lesse lawfully but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people these she might Thus he in which words he yeeldeth a double reason of the diuersity wherefore the Church endured Constantius Iulianus Valens Valentinianus the yonger Anastasius Heraclius and other hereticall Princes but did not forbeare Leo Isaurus Henry IV. Childerike and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing One forsooth because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to haue been ready rather to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes The other because the Church or the Pope could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius Iulianus Valens and the rest of that sort aboue mentioned but as for Leo Henry Childerike and the others she could therefore them she endured these she endured not But let vs see if both the reasons of this diuersity be not false and grounded vpon mere and strange falshoods and yet none hath assigned any better nor as I thinke can assigne any saue only that which doth vtterly ouerthrow the cause of the aduersaries which is that the Church did tolerate those former Emperors and Princes because as yet that blind ambition was not crept into her by which the succeeding Popes caried away with greedinesse of glory vsurped that temporall iurisdiction whereof we speake Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spirituall iurisdiction which they exercised with indifferency vpon all persons did wholly forbeare the temporall power which they did know that it belonged not vnto them so recommending the cause of the Church to the iudgement of God did with humility and patience expect the conuersion or confusion of wicked Princes But I returne to the reasons giuen by this Author that we may see how faulty they are And indeed to deale plainly his former reason or cause of diuersity seemeth to me very vnworthy and vnfit to be alleadged by any Catholike much lesse by a Diuine which I euen for this cause haue much a doe to read without teares For what are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be souldiors then Martyrs or to defend the law of God the Church rather by swords then by sermons But he saith not so may some say What then either he saith nothing or all together some such thing For his meaning is that the difference of these and those former times as touching the coertion of Princes consisteth in this that then the Bishops ought rather to haue been fit to vndergoe Martirdome then to reduce Princes into order Which being so who can not easily perceiue by his proper iudgement and naturall logike that either this reason stands not vpon dissimilia that is termes of vnlikenesse or that is to be placed in the other part which we haue set downe And yet I dare boldly affirme that there neuer time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselues to Martirdome The lion euery where gapeth for his pray the wolfe stands watching at the sheepfolds most mighty Kings and Princes many Nations and people buckle themselues and arme against the flocke of Christ and doth this man thinke that the time doth not require that the Bishops should not expose themselues to Martirdome and lay downe their liues for the sheepe what when the Church flourished and was spread thorough the whole world the Bishops ought to hope and looke for nothing but Martirdome and now when matters are come to this passe that the Church is grieuously tossed and tumbled and as it were crouded into a corner of Europe may the Bishops bend their mindes without all feare of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martirdome what because in these daies they maintaine great traines and retinues and troopes of horse and foote to defend themselues their liues and Persons and by force and armes to deliuer the Church from the iniurie of so many Princes and people that spoile her Or rather because now adaies very few vndertake the Bishoprickes with that minde and condition that they should be encombred and vexed with those troubles either of minde or bodie which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith but that they may passe their life with case and pleasure and that they may aduance and magnifie their owne house and bloud by the goods of the poore and Patrimonie of Christ Or lastly because that being hirelings and mercenarie Pastors they doe beleeue that it is very lawfull for them when the Wolfe comes and teares the Flocke to take their heeles and to auoide Martirdome I doe not bring forth these things to cast iniurie or enuie vpon the Ecclesiasticall order which I euer reuerenced and honoured from a child Neither doe I doubt but there are many who doe keepe most carefully and watchfully the flocke committed to them being ready vpon all occasions euen with their bodies to defend the sheepe committed to their keeping and with their bloud to seale the confession of Christ. But I speake all this in reproofe of the former answere and with all to their shame who now in euery place affect the dignities of the Church without any purpose of life fit for the Church but that they themselues may liue brauely and gallantly and that they may consume that wealth which the puritie of an Ecclesiasticall life doth well deserue vpon vses either vnlawfull or surely not necessarie very dishonestly and to the great scandall of the Church O the times O the manners of men The greatest part of the Christian common weale within these hundred yeeres or there abouts is vtterly perished Euen by this very meane that many Bishops and Priests being more forward to armes then to Martirdome haue vnaduisedly followed the meaning of the former answere supposing forsooth that which was not so that Heresie might easily bee oppressed by armes while themselues in the meane time held their owne course of life that is cherished their owne former pleasure and slothfulnesse Therefore they saw the Wolfe comming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolues themselues I speake no secrets now Scotland and England are my witnesses and other Countries which are slipped into* heresie wherein although many resisted manfully yet the greatest part of the Church-men did not endure so much as the first assault but presently in shamefull manner put in practise their treason and defection partly that they might enioy the fauour to liue freely which was both promised and permitted vnto them by the Nouators partly least that they being depriued of all their present meanes should fall to beggerie whereas if like those first Fathers in times past they had
a priuate man Before day saith Ambrose as soone as I set my foote out of dores the Palace was beset round about with souldiers and it is reported that word was sent the Emperour by the souldiers that if he would come forth he should haue leaue but yet that they would be ready to attend him if they saw that he did agree with the Catholikes otherwise that they would passe ouer to the companie that Ambrose gathered Not one of the Arrians durst come forth because neither any of them were Citizens a few of them of the Princes house and many of them Gothes who as before they had a Carte for their house so now a Carte is their Church And after in the same Epistle speaking of himselfe I am called a Tyrant quoth he yea and more then a Tyrant for when his friends intreated the Emperour that hee would come out to the Church and told him withall that they did it at the request of his souldiers he answered If Ambrose command you I will deliuer my selfe to be bound What say the Aduersaries to this is not this one place enough to stop all mens mouthes I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italie with a great armie gathered out of the parts of Britaine and France to prouide as hee pretended that Catholike religion should receiue no further harme and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himselfe which notwithstanding was not his onely end but that which in our age hath beene practised by diuers with this colour of Pietie he couered his burning desire of raigning for he was determined hauing now killed Gratianus at Lyons to inuade Ualentinianus his Empire Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his comming fled out of Italie into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperour of the East A matter worth the noting An Heretike being chased by a Catholike flies for succour to a Catholike of whom he is both rebuked for his heresie and for the reuerence of his Maiestie courteously receiued and restored to his kingdome And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawfull Prince Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire nor Restorer of the Church but a Rebell and a Tyrant Seeing these things stand thus I would now wish the Aduersaries that they would forbeare to abuse vs with their deuise and inuention or at least to tell vs whence they haue it Haue they read any where in any good Author that the Christians did then so much distrust their strength and power as that they durst not so much as attempt that which if they had resolutely vndertaken they had easily effected or that they made a proffer at the least but when they had tryed the fortune of the warre and all other humane meanes at last yeelded and lay downe vnder these wicked Princes Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospell that they did not vnderstand what power the Bishop or People had ouer a peruerse and hereticall Prince What did the heate of religion and the zeale of the house of God faile them Let the Aduersaries vnfould the memorie of all Records and turne ouer and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiasticall and prophane beleeue me they shall neuer finde that the Church in those times wherein it was much more powerfull than now it is did euer endeuour any thing to the mischiefe of Princes although they were wicked or euer went about to disanull their gouernment as hath beene plainly and plentifully prooued by vs in our bookes De Regno But cleane contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers of the power of secular Princes it is most certaine that all in that age did thinke that no temporall power did in any manner nor for any cause appertaine either to the Bishop of Rome or cheefe Bishop or to the whole Church but that for temporall punishments they were to be left to the iudgement of God alone And this as it seemeth was the cause why those fathers did so seldome and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes because indeed in those times there was no controuersie about it but one iudgement of all men which euen from the preaching of the Apostles they receiued in a manner by hand that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his iudge although in spirituall matters he be subiect to the iudgement of the Church For the first witnesse in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperours They thinke saith he that it is God alone in whose only power they are from whom they are second after whom they are first before all Gods and aboue all men and in another place we honor the Emperor so as is both lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second from God and haue obtained what so euer he is from God lesse then God only this he desires himselfe so is he greater then all men while he is lesse then the true God alone Thus much he professeth not in his particular but in the generall person of all christians as the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the whole Church Neither let any thinke to elude this argument because the Emperors at that time were without the Church and therefore not subiect to the Church For the law of Christ depriues no man of his right which the aduersaries themselues confesse and therefore as we shewed before Kings and Emperors by comming to the Church loose nothing of their temporall interest In the second place shall S. Ambrose come foorth who writing of Dauid that heaped murder vpon adultery He was a King saith he he was bound by no lawes because Kings are free from the bands of offences For they are not called to punishment by any lawes being exempte by the power of their gouernment Thirdly B. Gregorie of Towers who speakes to Childerike King of France vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously in these words If any of vâ—â—â— King would transgresse the limits of iustice he may be punished by you but if you shall exceed who shall punish you for we speake to you but if you will you heare and if you will not who shall condemne you but he who hath pronounced that he is iustice it selfe Fourthly S. Gregorie the Great who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers who being Pope himselfe confessed that he was the seruant and subiect of the Emperor and with great ciuility and humility acknowledged that all power was giuen the Emperor from heauen ouer all men as we shewed a little before Fiftly the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen Only Kings saith he as being set ouer the lawes are reserued to the examination of God they are not restrained by the lawes of man From
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
are forbidden to 〈◊〉 one that is no christian Grant all this be true Then 〈◊〉 these parts thus granted he proceeds in this 〈◊〉 Againe It is equally dangerous and hurtfull to chuse one that is not a Christian not to depose a non Christian as it is known Ergo Christians are bound not to suffer euer them a King not Christian if he endeuour to turne the people from the â—auâ— I answer that this consequence is not good and that by such vitious and deceitfull manner of arguing many are turned from the truth Now the fallacy is in this that he determines and assumes for certaine that there is law wheresoeuer the same hurt or danger is which I shall prooue presently to be most false Neither is it like that which the 〈◊〉 deliuer vâ—â—â—adem ratio est â—us idem esse 〈◊〉 Therefore we must obserue that he doth not saâ—e 〈◊〉 dempâ—â—â—att esse eligere non Christianum non deponere non Christianum that it is as faulty or vnlawfull c. which if he had said I had denied the antecedent but he saith 〈…〉 esse that it is as hurtful and dangerous c. whence he doth falsly gather that Christians are â—ound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian. For it followeth not where the same harme and danger is that the same power to doe any thing is granted to the party who is 〈◊〉 or endangered nor where equall harme and danger is there also is equall sinne or merit and this may be easily prooued by examples He that re 〈◊〉 ounds or is spoiled of his goods suffers the same danger and mischeefe whether it be by force from a robber or a wandring souldier or that he be oppressed of a Magistrate by an vniust sentence But the same remedy is not prouided against both these to run vpon a robber and to kill him in defense of himselfe and his goods it is very lawfull reseruing as they say the moderation of the defensiue resistance that it be without blame But it is not likewise lawfull to resist a Magistrate who according to the power of his iurisdiction had passed an vniust sentence against him by reason of the authority which iudgements and matters iudged vse to haue Marke I pray you although in both respects there be the like harme and losse to him that is spoiled yet the same law is not of force in both places Againe it is a matter of the same danger and hurt deliberately to enter into a ship whose keeâ—e you know to be â—â—aken and hath sprung a leake and to enter into that which you take to be sound when as indeed she is rotten and full of leakes I say it is a matter equally dangerous not equally vnlawfull In the first case you tempt God and procure to your selfe your owne death but in the later it 〈◊〉 haue vsed all possible diligence you doe not offend it ignorantly you commit your selfe to such a ship So it is a matter of the same danger and hurt to mary a woman for her wealth or beauty which you know to be â—â— an vnquiet and a 〈◊〉 disposition and by chance to light vpon one which you doe not know to be such a one And yet he that casts himself into so manifest a danger seemeth greatly to offend who in the shaping of the course of his life doth tempt God But he that being ignorant of his to tune and of the moroâ—â—ty and sharpnesse of the woman shall mary her not only committeth nothing against God but by his daily troubles and miseries if he beare them with a strong and patient minde doth please him as it were by a certaine kind of martirdome I â—ight produce many examples of this kind to conuince the captiousnesse of this argument of Bellarmines Therefore as it followeth not if he that knowes a woman to be extreamly wicked and so froward that there is no hope to huâ— with her in peace and quietnesse ought not to take her to wife because by that act he doth cast himselfe into 〈◊〉 danger that he also who casually and vnwittingly haâ—h light of such a one ought to forsake or refuse her notwithstanding the bond of matrimony although it be a matter of the same danger and hurt if he keepe her In like manner it followeth not if Christians be bound not to chuse a King who is no Christian or an heretike that they are â—ound also not to endure him being now chosen because many things hinder a businesse which is to be done which doe not dissolue the same being done as we haue other where shewed at large And this is sufficient to weaken the force of this argument CHAP. XXI BVt yet I am constrayned to stay heere a little longer that I may further discouer and represse another errour which he adioynes as a Complement to his former reason for to confirme that which he said That Christians are bound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian c. And because he would haue none to doubt of this proposition because in times past Christians did both tolerat and honour many Princes euen because they were Princes without any scruple of conscience which were partly Heathen partly Heretikes that I say he might preuent with some solution this so strong an obiection and so peremptory against his former positioÌ„ he presently adioyneth these words Now if Christians in times past did not depose Nero and Dioclâ—tianus and Iulianus the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because the Christians wanted temporall strongth For that otherwise they might iustly haue done it appeareth by the Apostle 1. Cor. 6. where hee commands that new Iudges in Temporall causes should be set ouer the Christians least the Christians should be enforced to bring their causes and debate them before a Iudge that was a persecutor of Christ. For as new Iudges might be appointed so also might new Princes and Kings haue beene for the same cause if they had had strength sufficient for such an enterprise Heere be many things worthy to be reprehended and which I doe much maruell that a man so learned and trained in authors both sacred and prophane would euer commit to writing For first he saith that the want of strength was the cause why Christians in times past did not depose Nero Dâ—â—cleâ—ian Iulian Ualens and the like we haue sufficiently declared to be most false by cleere and vndoubted testimonies in our bookes Deregno and also aboue in this booke and will foorth with demonstrate euen out of the Principles laid and granted by himselfe Secondly there is nothing moreâ—oâ—d nor more vnreasonable yeâ— that I may speake it without offence of so great a man nothing more 〈…〉 to alledge the authority of S. Paul for to giue grace and creâ—â—t to 〈…〉 proposition in whose writing there is not so 〈…〉 one word which without 〈…〉 â—â—construction and â—auâ—â—l can be applied 〈…〉 they
reason before related by vs is by him propounded in these words A shepheard may shedde and shut vp the furious rammes which destroy the flocke But a Prince is a furious ramme destroying the flocke when he is in faith a Catholicke but so wicked as hee doth much hurt Religion and the Church as if he should sell Bishoprickes spoile Churches c. Ergo the Pastor of the Church may reclude him he should haue rather said exclude him for recludere is aperire or to reduce him into the rancke of the sheepe Surely wee doe admitte this argument and whatsoeuer beside is by necessary consecution inferred thereof now no other thing can be inferred but that it is lawfull for the Pastor of the Church by which name we vnderstand the Pope in this place to expell an euill Prince out of the Lords fold and to exclude him that he rest not in the Lords sheepe-cotes with the rest of the Christian flocke that is to say by Ecxommunication to cast him out of the Communion of the Church of the Saints and to depriue him of all the benefites of regeneration in Christ and to deliuer him to Satan vntill hee make lawfull satisfaction for his offence and contumacie And this punishment is wholy spirituall and ecclesiastick and the greatest of all other which the Church hath which he cannot goe beyond no not against a priuate person vnlesse it be to go to the Prince ciuill as being superiour to the offender and beseech him to punish the iniurie offered to the holy mother who for that shee is a nurse of the Church ought to chastice with corporall and ciuill punishments the offenders and rebels to the same But the Church wanteth this temporall aide when as he is the soueraigne Prince himselfe who commits that for which hee may be worthily excommunicate because he hath no superior by no law can be challenged to punishment being free and safe through the Maiestie of his gouernment Therefore although the Pastor of the Church or the Pope may by Excommunication exclude him from the flocke and so depriue him of all his spirituall benefites yet can hee take away from him none of those things which he possesseth and enioyeth by vertue of a temporall and humane interest because goods of that nature are not subiect to Ecclesiastique but to Politique lawes which are in the power of Kings And as no Christian whether Prince or priuate person can auoid the Popes iudgment in spirituall Causes so neither may any subiect of what ranke or place soeuer he be decline the iudgement of his King or Prince in temporall affaires for in that the causes of Clergie persons are committed to other then to ciuill Iudges that was granted them by the singular grace and priuiledge of Princes whereas by the common law Cleriques as wel as Laiques are subiect to the temporall authority of secular Princes And this is grounded on that reason which Bellarmine himselfe deliuers viz. That Clergie persons besides that they are Clergy persons are also Citizens and certain parts of the common wealth politique Hence it is that vnder the best and holiest Christian Princes all the causes of Clergy men as well ciuill as criminall so as they were not Ecclesiasticke were wont to bee debated before ciuill and temporall Magistrates Therefore the Clergy did owe to secular Princes this their liberty which in this point they enioy as we haue declared before in the 15. Chapter Whereby I maruaile that the same Bellarmine doth affirme that the Pope might simply by his owne authority exempt Clergy men by the Canon Law from the subiection of temporall Princes For that I may speake it with the reuerence of so great a man it is as false as false may be Because the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and interest but it should depriue if it should take away against their wils that temporall right and interest which Princes before they became Christians had ouer Clergie men Againe seeing the Pope himselfe hath obtained this exemption of his owne by no other right but by the bounty and grace of Princes For as the aduersaries confesse hee was both de iure and de facto subiect to heathen princes as other Citizens it is an absurd thing to say that he could deliuer others froÌ„ the same subiection Otherwise that might agree to him which the wicked blaspheming Iewes did vpbraid to our Sauiour Christ He hath saued others himselfe he could not saue And in this point the authority of the Fathers in Councels could not be greater then the Popes Therefore this place requireth that wee also conuince an other errour which hath sprung spread very wide out of the decrees of Counsels not diligently and aduisedly considered and which reacheth at this day I know not how farre and to what persons viz. That Councels haue freed Clergy men from the authoritie iurisdiction of Magistrates Which is as far from all truth as may be for it is no where found in any Councell that the Fathers assumed to them so much authority as to depriue secular Judges of their authority and iurisdiction ouer the Clergy or in any sort forbid them to heare and determine the causes of Clergy men being brought before them vnlesse it were after that by the singular bounty of Diuines which began from Iustintanus that priuiledge of Court was granted to Church men For when as these graue Fathers themselues which were present and presidents in Councels were subiect to temporal authority as Saint Augustine teacheth in expositione cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom. it could not bee that they should by their proper authority exempt themselues or others from that subiection Therefore wee must vnderstand that those ancient fathers of the church amongst whom the Ecclesiasticall discipline did flourish with much seuerity and sincerity which at this day is too much neglected vsed all the care and diligence that might bee that the Clergy should carry a light before the people not onely in doctrine but also in inteâ—rity of manners and innocency of life and for that cause that they admonished all Clergy men and decreed and enacted by the Canons of their councels that none of them should bring against another any ciuill or criminall complaint before a secular Iudge but that either they should compose all their controuersies among themselues by the arbitration of friends or if they would not or could not that at least they should end them by the iudgement of the Bishop And surely they ordered their matters in this manner out of the same or surely the very like aduice which S. Paul in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians gaue the Christians forbiding them that they should not draw one an other before the iudgement seates of insidell Iudges and there contend about their differences which we spake of a little before I say out of the same aduice these fathers ordained that if any thing sell out among the Clergy after the
manner of men which might be a scandall to the Laitie as are the faults which are committed of humaine frailety that the same might with more secresie and closenes be amended before their proper Ordinaries nor should not come to the eares of the rude and barbarous multitude which oft times measureth the doctrine by the manners and is accustomed either to disdaine or to scorne and laugh at these maner of slippes in the Clergy And moreouer lest the Cleriques who ought to bee carefull and diligent to maintaine peace and concord and both in word and deede to giue example of charity and patience should seeme by their often haunting and frequenting of secular Courts to shew the way to all manner of strifes and contention Then by these decrees of Councelles there is nothing detracted from the authoritie of the Laickes but that they may heare the causes of the Clergie men For the Fathers did not neither indeed could they forbid that secular Iudges should not iudge and determine of Clergie mens causes being brought before them for that had beene to take from Princes and Magistrates that right and authoritie which the law of Christ doth not permit them to doe but indeed they did forbidde that one Clergy person should not draw an other before those kind of Iudges appointing canonicall or ecclesiasticall punishments against them which did not obey Now this they might appoint iustly and lawfully without wrong or preiudice to any euen as a good Father that hath many children may commaund his children and also forbid them vnder a priuate and domesticke punishment that they doe not contēd before a Iudge about any controuersies amongst themselues but that they cease and lay downe all quarrell and differences vpon the iudgment of their father or brethren and by giuing his children this charge he doth not preiudice at all the authority of lawfull Iudges Euen so the Fathers of the councels haue inhibited their sonnes that is the Clergy men that they should maintaine no action nor question amongst them selues before secular Iudges not by taking away from the Laiques their power to heare and decide of their causes but by abridging the Clergie of their ancient liberty of going so freely vnto them as they vsed to do And this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authority and iurisdiction of temporall Magistrates but only to take a course by which the Clergie hauing businesse with the Clergy may easily attaine their right without so much noise and stirrings in Lay-mens courtes And lest any man should doubt whether these things stand thus or no I thought it worth my pains to set down the very decrees of the Counsels from which because they were not well vnderstoode this errour hath sprung that from thence the Reader may vnderstand the truth of our discourse The first then which decreed any thing touching this point was the 3. councell of Carthage held the yeare of our Lord 397. at which S. Augustine was present and subscribed the same In the 9. can of that councell it is thus written Also wee haue ordained that whosoeuer Bishop Priest and Deacon or Clerke when as a crime is charged vpon him in the Church or a Ciuill controuersie shall bee raised against him if he leauing the Ecclesiastick iudgement shall desire to be cleared by the publique iudgements although the sentence passe of his side that hee shall lose his place and this in a criminall iudgement But in a Ciuill that he foresee that which hee hath wonne if he desire to hold his place still For hee that hath free liberty to chuse his Iudges where hee will hee doth shew himselfe to be vnworthy of the fellowshippe of his brethren who conceiuing meanely of the whole Church sueth to the secular iudgement for helpe Whereas the Apostle commaundeth that the causes of priuate Christians should bee brought to the Church and be there determined Is there any word here whereby it may be gathered by any probable reason that the Councell meant to exempt the Clergie from the iurisdiction of secular Magistrates or doth declare that the Laickes are not competent Iudges for the Clergie Nay it sheweth the direct contrarie viz. that they doe confesse that the secular Iudges may by good right heare and decide the causes of Clergie persons and that they doe not disallow their iudgements as giuen by an incompetent Iudge but that they only endeuour this to restraine the giddinesse and forwardnesse of those Clerickes that when as a cause hath alreadie beene begun to bee debated in the Church forsaking and contemning the Ecclesiasticke Iudges doe submit themselues to the order and iudgement of Laickes in which case the Councell doth not disallow the sentence giuen by a secular Iudge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Iudge but a penaltie depriueth that Clerke of the fruit and benefite of such a sentence by reason of his lewdnesse and disorder Now in that the Fathers of that Councell did at that time acknowledge the Ciuill Magistrates to bee the competent Iudges of Clergy men by that it may bee vnderstood sufficiently that they restrained this their decree to that case wherein a crime is raised vpon a Clearke in the church or a ciuill controuersie set on foot against him Therfore out of these cases it was by this Canon lawfull for the Clergie without offence to prosecute their sutes in a ciuill court and to debate their businesse before a secular Iudge After followed the famous Councell of Chalcedon Ann. Dom 451. which also in the 9. Canon decreeth on this manner If any Clergy person haue businesse with a Clergie person let him not forsake his proper Bishop and runne to temporall iudgements but first let the businesse be sifted by the pr per Bishop or at least by the counsell of the same Bishop they shall receiue iudgement and order from them by whom both parties were content to be iudged If any shall doe otherwise he shall be subiect to the Canonicall consures Obserue how this Councell directeth her speech to the Clergie that they should not leaue their owne Bishops to goe to secular Iudges but not to temporall Magistrates and Iudges that they should not heare Clergie men comming to them and after the cause debated should pronounce sentence according to the course of law compell them to performe the iudgement Therefore by this Canon there is nothing taken from the authoritie of the Laitie For those words of the Canon or Decree Sedprius actio ventiletur apud proprium Fpiscopum doe sufficiently shew that the Fathers of the Councell doe only require that all the causes of Clergie men bee at the first hand examined by the Bishop secondly if there bee cause that they bee carried to the examination of the temporall Iudge For it is not likely or credibl that that word Primum was idly and super fluously set downe by so many worthy and wise men and so that Canon doth wholly accord with the Nouell Constitution 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
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
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