produce wonderfull effects as euen at this day sometimes he vpon the like occasion doth produce among people which be newly won to Christ. CHAP. XXVI SEeing these matters stand thus the way is made more easie for vs to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation being now already opened by vs and retorted backe vpon himselfe for they fall to ground partly thorow their owne fault and weaknesse and partly because they are not wel set vpon the foundation whereon they are built For first out of that that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Woolues that be may driue them away by any meane he can he reasoneth in this manner Woolues which destroy the Church of God are Heretikes Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolfe that is of a Christian become an Heretike the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also command the People that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of his gouernment ouer his subiects But he is deceiued or doth deceiue vs by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion For in that he saith that the Pastor of the Church may driue away an Heretike Prince by excommunication that is very true and is deriued out of that principle by a necessary consecution But that he may onely marry that he ought not to do it but at such times when as he may coÌ„modiously do it without scandall and hurt to the Church as I haue de-declared before For where there is danger least the peace of the Church may be dissolued and least The member of Christ be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes the seuere mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary that is to say is wholy to be left to the iudgement and punishment of God for Counsell of separation that is of excommunication are both vaine and hurtfull and Sacrilegious because they become both impious and preud and doe more disturbe the weake good ones then correct the sâ—urdy ill ones This is the doctrine of S. Angustine approoued by the common voice of the Church whereby it is euident how rasâ—ly and vnwisely certaine Popes haue separated from the Church by excommunication most mighty Emperours and Kings with the great scandall of the whole world and dissolution of the peace of the Church whom it had beene farre better to haue tolerated and to haue discouered their faults onely and with mourning to haue bewailed them in the Church For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept and for the saluation of the weake brethren and such as now were fed onely with milke least the members of the body of Christ should be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes Therefore the Popes might doe this but they ought not Non omne quod licet honestum est Very well saith the Apostle omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt Therefore the first part of the conclusion is true that the Pastor of the Church may driue away heretike Princes by excommunication But that which followeth and withall command the people that they follow him not hath two eares to hold by as I may say with Epictetus the one sound the other broken I meane a twofold vnderstanding the one true the other faulty For if he speake in this sense that it is the duty of the Pope to command the subiects that they follow not an heretike Prince in his heresie that they run not with him in his madnesse nor admit and swallow downe his damnable errors for that they suffer not themselues to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true and is deriued very truly out of the same principle and fountaine and this is the best sense of those words For there is nothing so conuenient and comely for the pontificall dignity and the whole order Ecclesiastike nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people as that according to the patterne of the ancient fathers of the Church the principall Bishop himselfe first and the rest of his brethren all of them should preach the word should be instant in season and out of season conuince intreat rebuke in all patience and doctrine That like Faithfull witnesses and good seruants whom the Lord hath set ouer his family they may so worke both by word and example that the people follow not the errors of their King nor either dissemble nor forsake the Catholike faith thorow any either threatnings or allurements of the King which because most of them either do not all at this day or at the least much more slackly then they ought and that duty which it becomes them to performe themselues they put ouer to certaine begging Friers what maruell is it if many in our age haue been caried away as it were with a whirle wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds into the toiles of the diuell This as I haue said is the best sense But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speake in this sense both the cause which he hath in hand and this clause following Ac proinde prinare eum dominio in subditos doth plainly declare Therefore he giues vs the broken care of the pot I meane the corrupt and the very worst sense of those words forsooth that the pastor of the Church may command the subiect that they execute no commandement of such a Prince and that by any meanes they yeeld him no reuerence obedience honor in those matters which belong euen to a temporall and ciuill authority And therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects But this is false and flat contrary to the law of God and precepts of the Apostles Feare the Lord my sonne and the King Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and powers to obey their commandement Be subiect to euery creature for God or to the King as soueraigne feare God honor the King and diuers of that kind which things seeing they be spoken of wicked Kings and persecutors of the Church for at that time no other ruled in the world they can not but belong to the worst and vnworthiest kind of Kings Therefore this is that which I said before that either he deceiues of purpose or is deceiued by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion For it is true that a Pastor of the Church may driue away an heretike Prince by excommunication but it is false that he may depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects For obedience due to Kings and all superiors is both by 〈◊〉 of nature and of God how then can the Pope by any meane dispense with people against the same For they that with more diligence and exact care doe search the scriptures doe obserue a too fold kind of the precepts of Paul one is of those by which he publisheth the law of God which he was sent to
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
twentie yeeres and rent the Church asunder with a continuall schisme may be an argument to vs that that Decree was not made by a diuine inspiration but by an humane passion nor that it proceeded from an ordinarie Iurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolike but either from an extraordinarie ambition or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeale of him that held the Sea For it is not likely that God who is the Author of Iustice and protector of the Church and who hath made the first executions of the spirituall power of the Church exceeding fearefull by present miracles and horrible effects would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinarie assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authoritie and power of his Church especially seeing he was with so many praiers inuocated by the Bishop for his helpe and the Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication in these wordes Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles and by your authoritie interpoâ—ed confirme that which I haue said that all men may now at the last understand if you can binde and loose in heauen that you are also as well able it earth to take away and giue Empires Kingdomes Principalities and whatsoeuer else mortall men may haue Let Kings now learne by this Kings example and all the Princes of the world what you are able to doe in heauen and how much you are in fauour with God and heereafter let them be afraid to contemne the commandements of holy Church But execute with speed vpon Henrie that all men may vnderstand that this Child of iniquitie falleth out of his Kingdome not by chance but by your care Yet this I would intreat at your handes that he being led by repentance may at your request obtaine fauour of the Lord in the day of iudgement These and such like praiers being powred out to God and the Princes of the Apostles and Curses and Imprecations in solemne maner cast vpon Henrie who would not thinke that God who by his Apostles preserues his Church with a continuall protection would not easily suffer himselfe to be intreated and would not presently heare this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authoritie of the Church to be made manifest if any such authoritie had belonged to the Church Wheras notwithstanding cleane contrarie euery thing fell out crosse and vnhappie against the Pope and against the authors and fautors of the Popes partie whilest Henrie in the meane time triumphed and held his Empire still for that which he suffered from his sonne at last after fiue and twentie yeeres vnder a shew of religion as Frisingensis saith that makes little or nothing to this matter This was a pretext onely for a wicked sonne who was sicke of the Father before the time but the true cause was ambition and the burning desire of rule quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children and contrariwise as wee haue shewed at large other where One said excellently well patris longâ—oâ— vit a malo filio seruit us videtur CHAP. XI BY this as I suppose it is euident enough that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other wicked Princes because she then distrusted her might and strength nor because she could not reduce them to order without the great hurt of the people for indeed she might with more ease and lesse hurt to the people haue chastised those ancient Princes Then not onely Henry the fourth from whose businesse so lasting a schisme did spring but either Otho the fourth or Frederick the second or Philip Pulcher or Lewes the eleuenth or Iohn Nauarre or others against whom the Bishops being puffed vp with the successe of their affaires drew foorth their Sentences of Excommunication and depriuation of Kingdomes not for heresie nor for the euill gouernment of State nor at the request of the subiects but euen inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections I meane their priuate hatred To conclude not for that the state of the Church in that age would haue her Bishops more readie than in this time to suffer martyrdome for then the Church was in very safe estate and as we say sailed in the hauen as hauing been now anciently founded vpon the Apostolike constitutions and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs Yea such then was the state of the Church that there was much lesse need for Bishops to be readie for martyrdome than at this time for that so great a multitude then being as it were sprinckled with the fresh blood of the martyrs did in a maner sauour of nothing but martyrdome that the Pastour was no lesse admonished of his dutie by the example of the flocke than the seuerall persons of the people by the example of the Pastour But now ô lamentable case the case is quite otherwise the Church is tossed with most grieuous tempests and only not ouerwhelmed as yet with the furie of heretikes manie euen of those who desire to be called Catholikes being so affected that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles much lesse vndergoe death for true religion wherefore that life and heat may be giuen to that lukewarmnesse and that men might be stirred vp to the readiest way and as it were the shortest cut for their health who seeth not that there is need of Bishops to shew the way both by word and example and both to compose them themselues and to exhort others rather to martyrdome than to armes and insurrections to which we are prone by nature Who would not iudge that the fatherly pietie of Clement the eight ioyned with excellent wisdome whereby he endeuoureth to reduce to anâ—itie and to keepe in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church than the martiall furies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleuenth wherby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italie France Germanie Spaine and all 〈…〉 together by the cares 〈…〉 be thus surely we must needs confâ—â—◠〈…〉 ancient fathers of the Church 〈…〉 fault in that they did not only suffer 〈…〉 they might easily those guiltie and 〈…〉 of the saith but also courtcously reuerenced them and honoured them with regall titles and dignities or els we must needs thinke that they spared those maner of Princes for the reuerence of Maiestie the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone or surely we must beleeue that besides the reasons deliuered by the aduersaries there is yet some better behinde which none hitherto hath brought forth nor euer will as I suppose For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous worke which he writ against Kings to elude the â—orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers As though saith he
the Passion that thou put of thy body that with the cast cloathes of thy flesh sacrifised thou maiest buy a crowne of Martyrdome which thou maiest gather out of the blessings of the Lord who preached that it was the summe of all Crownes if a man suffer persecution for righteousnesse Lastly that you may know of what passion he spake least he should trouble the mindes of his Disciples he brought foorth the example touching himselfe saving Because as yet that which is written ought to be fulfilled in me that he was reputed with the iniust Thus he To which I will at last adioyne that Bellarmine himselfe in the bookes de summo Pontifice prooueth that it is not the meaning of that place of the Gospell that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall and Temporall sword I answered saith he that no mention is made in that place of the Gospell of the Spirituall and Temporall sword of the Pope but onely that by those words the Lord would admonish his Disciples that in the time of his passion they should be in those straightes and in that feare wherein they are wont to be who are glad to sell their câ—ate to buy them a sword withall Where vpon hee affirmeth that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the viij did mystically onely interpret this place of the two swords Which seeing it is so and that it is certaine both by the interpretation of the Fathers and also by the confession of Bellarmine himselfe that the words of our Sauiour are not truely properly and strictly to be taken of those swords about which all our swords are drawen and we together by the eares surely then that speech of Bernard is very wrongfully alleadged to prooue that the Pope in any case hath Temporal power ouer Christian Princes or that the Temporall sword is vnder the Spirituall sword the which neither S. Bernard saith there neither â—â—uld so say without wresting and peruerting the place Therefore although we grant neuer so much that the place is to be vnderstood mystically of the Spirituall and Temporall sword yet that exposition of Bernards will onely worke thus much that we may vnderstand that Christian Kings and Princes ought to wage warre for the Church by the Counsell of the Church or of the Pope Which no sober man will euer deny And so Christ if in this manner we vnderstand his words mystically two swords being shewed said Satis est not to signifie that one sword should be subiect to the other or that both of them should be in the hand of the Pope and the Priests for that exposition is faulty and is repugnant both to right reason and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers wherein it is taught that Kings and Emperours haue God onely for their superiour in temporalities but to admonish vs that there should be at the last in the Christian Common-wealth a meeting and concourse of both the swords Spirituall and Temporall when Princes should be conuerted to the faith and that by them two the Church should be euery way protected and defended from iniury But because we are fallen into this notable place of S. Bernard I would wish the reader by the way diligently to consider with me that which I know not whether any hath obserued heretofore What is the reason that he writing to Eugenius the Pope of the temporall sword first saith tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus Then a few lines after doth adde that the same sword is to be vsed nutu sacerdotis and addes not forsitan Doth that same forsitan either abound in the former sentence or faile in the latter The truth is that the godly and wise man did it of purpose that he might with some finenesse distinguish the person of the Pope from the pontificall or sacerdotall authority and office and teach that it importeth very much whether the Pope or Eugenius although both Pope and Eugenius were the same doe bid or forbid any thing I meane whether the Pope as a man obnoxious to the perturbations of the mind would haue the sword drawen not for the Church according to the duty of his function but by the instigation of a corrupt affection or as a Priest that is a good and holy man doe command or refuse that the sword should be drawen and war waged seruing not his owne turne but the profit of the Church As if he should say ô Eugenius cheefe Bishop the temporall sword is not absolutely and simply to be drawen at thy commandement but peraduenture euen then when as for the euident commodity of the Church you shall aduise them with wise and sound counsell who haue the sword in their power but not then when as out of the desire you haue either to practise ancient enmity with any or to powre out any new conceiued hatred or to satisfie any ambitious desire to rule you shall purpose to set christian Kings and people by the eares or to wage and bring any was upon them For that is a point of a Priest this of a Man For that is a meditation and action of a Priest this of a man that of a Bishop this of Eugenius or some other that holds the Bishops sea That this was S. Bernards meaning in those words the actions of certaine Bishops who haue beene beyond measure transported with anger and pride haue plainly declared But let vs returne to our purpose CHAP. XX. THe third reason in Bellarmine is It is not lawfull for 〈◊〉 to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an be 〈◊〉 vncendeauour to draw his subiects to heresie or 〈◊〉 But to iudge whether a King doe draw to heresie or 〈…〉 Pope to whom the charge of religion is committeâ— Ergo It belongs to the Pope to iudge that a King is to be 〈◊〉 not to be â—epoâ—ed And he labours to prooue thâ— proposition of this reason by three arguments Therefore I answer to that That he saith that it is not 〈…〉 to tolerate a King that is an heretike or an 〈◊〉 c. that this proposition is as false as false may be Otherwise all antiquity is to be condemned which did beare with great submission and patience Kings hereticall and infidelâ— who went about to destroy the Church of God 〈…〉 propter conâ—cientiam that is not 〈◊〉 that they wanted strength to enforce â—icked 〈…〉 that they iudged that they might not by the law oâ— God But becauâ—â— we haue in our books against the 〈…〉 and also aâ—oue in this booke we haue 〈…〉 hurtfull and mischieuous erâ—â—â— there is no cause whâ— we should dwell any long 〈…〉 the faâ—â—â—ood thereof It only remaineth that 〈…〉 shâ—w the faults of the arguments wherewith 〈…〉 to prooue his false proposition I 〈◊〉 first argument he fâ—tches out of Deuteronâ—mie where the people is forbidden to chuse a King which is not 〈…〉 brethren that is who is not a Iew least he dâ—aw them to idolatry therefore also Christians
conniuencie of the ancient Popes and the vanitie thereof discouered Chap. 12. That the Pope hath no authoritie not so much as indirectly ouer Christian Princes in temporall matters proued both by the speciall prerogatiues of an absolute Prince and also by the grounds of the Catholikes and the inconueniencies insuing of the admittance thereof Chap. 13. He vndertakes Bellarmine his proofes propounds his first maine reason with the Media whereby Bellarmine inforceth the same Chap. 14. He taketh away the ground which Bellarmine laid for the strengthening of his first Proposition and layeth open the lightnes and vanitie thereof Chap. 15. He amplifieth the answere to the last ground laid by Bellarmine and explaneth in what termes of Relation or Subordination the Powers both Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe stand Secondly he sheweth that Clergie persons are as well and fully to be reputed the subiects of Temporall Princes as Lay men are Thirdly that the Clergie first receiued their Priuiledges from the fauour of Princes and that the Pope himselfe as successor of Peter must necessarily bee subiect to a Temporall Prince but that hee is a Temporall Prince in Italie himselfe which State also he receiued at the first by the Bountie of Temporall Princes Chap. 16. He detecteth a plaine fallacie in a reason of Bellarmines which in Schooles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sheweth at large that Temporall Princes haue submitted themselues to the Popes as their Spiritual Fathers but not so absolutely but that they euer reserued their Ciuill authoritie firme and vntouched to themselues Chap. 17. He answereth Bellarmines second reason and prooueth that this vnlimited power of disposing the Temporalties of Princes is neither belonging nor necessarie for the Church and that the Church florished more the first three hundred yeeres without the same authoritie then it hath done since certaine later Popes vsurped the same Chap. 18. He discusseth more at large the sense of Bellarmine his latter argument to proue the Popes soueraigntie ouer Kings in Temporalties and bewraies the inconsequence and vanitie thereof Chap. 19. He discusseth a passage in S. Bernard touching the Materiall sword and the words of Christ Ecce duo glâ—dij and concludeth that the Temporall sword is neither proper to the Pope nor subiect to the Spirituall Chap. 20. He encountreth Bellarmine his third reason and the proâ—â—es of the same Wherein he excepts especially against this Proposition of Bellarmine that it is as dangerous to chuse a Heathen Prince as not to depose him that is not a Christian but the Elench or fallacie of the whole argument he plainly discouereth Chap. 21. He insisteth further on the point Whether Christians ought to suffer ouer them a King that is not a Christian. The text of the 1. Cor. 6. is discussed Of going to law vnder infidell Princes or Iudges and Bellarmine his fraud and captiousnes discouered in abusing that place to serue his turne Secondly a place of Thomas Aquinas examined touching the point of taking from Heathen Princes their Right Thirdly that it was not want of strength but meere Religion and Conscience that kept the Primitiue Church in obedience by Bellarmines own grounds Chap. 22. He answereth Bellarmines second maine Reason taxeth the same both for matter in truth and forme in Logick and giues a right supplie to the deficiencie of the same by which the force of the same reason is taken away Chap. 23. He taketh in hand Bellarmines third argument which is drawne from a comparison of the bond of Mariage with the bond of the Obedience due from the subiect to the Prince and both shewes how weake it is in it selfe and how strong against him that brings it Chap. 24. He examineth a fourth Reason of Bellarmines taken from the forme of an Oath which Princes are supposed to take when they were receiued into the Church and sheweth that nothing can be made thereof to proue Bellarmines assertion for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Christian Princes Chap. 25. He examineth the last reason of Bellarmine grounded on the words of Christ to Peter Pasce oues meas the which reason from these words if it haue any edge at all he turneth the same backe vpon Bellarmine himselfe Chap. 26. He prooueth that Bellarmine is deceiued or doth deceiue of purpose in his reason drawne from the comparison of the Pope as a shepheard and an heretike Prince as a wolfe 2. What is the dutie of the shepheard in case the Prince doe of a sheepe become a wolfe Chap. 27. He debateth the power of the Pope to dispense what is the nature of those lawes wherewith the Pope may dispense But that he hath no colour to dispense with the obedience of a subiect to his Prince The madnesse of the Canonists that giue too vast a fulnes of power to the Pope Chap. 28. The Examination of a Rescript of Pope Innocent the third which hath these words Not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate Which words many haue laboured to reconcile but haue missed Chap. 29. But the Author giues the resolution excusing the Popes meaning and blaming the words to answere the Canonists Chap. 30. That the Pope although he might dispense with the oath of a Subiect yet can he not dispense with his Obedience to his Prince to which he is bound by the law of God and Nature which are greater then his Oath 2. The dangerous consequence to all Christian Princes by this power of the Pope called Indirect if he should haue it 3. What the People ought to answere the Pope or his Ministers in case they should bee by them solicited against their lawfull Prince Chap. 31. The error of the later Popes in taking this high and headlong course to depose Princes what ill blood it hath bred in the Church proued by miserable experience in Germanie France England and hath brought the See of Rome both into hatred and contempt with all Christian Princes Chap. 32. That if the Prince play the wilde Ramme the Pope may correct him but as a spirituall Pastor onely by spirituall meanes 2. That neither the Prince can auoide or decline the Popes iudgement in cases Spirituall nor any Clergie person the Kings in cases Temporall 3. That the Clergie receiued those Exemptions and Immunities which at this day they enioy through all Christendome not from the Pope nor from Canons of Councels but by the bountie and indulgencie of secular Princes 4. The explanation of the Canons of certaine famous Councels which the aduersaries alleage in their behalfe and yet vpon the matter make rather against them 5. The notorious corruption practised by Gratianus in peruerting the words of two seuerall Canons flat against the Originall which corruption also Bellarmine very strangely followeth because it seemeth to make to his purpose Chap. 33. He propoundeth and proueth a paradoxe of his owne That all the Clergie men in the world of what degree or ranke soeuer are
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
bent themselues to Martirdome they had in the very infancie destroied that most horrible Monster It may bee that the Author of that booke wrote such things of a good minde and without any fraud but surely it cannot bee that as the state of the Church affaires doth now stand they should be thought to be of any weight or moment For when as all the world almost was bound to the catholike Church velut nexu Manâ—ipioque as the Ciuilians say that is by the straitest bands of seruice and dutie euen then saith he were those times such as wherein the Bishops ought to haue beene more ready to haue suffered Martirdome then to haue enforced Princes to order and now when partly Infidels partly Heretikes haue spread ouer all Asia Afrike Europe one or two kingdomes onely excepted and that the Church is reduced almost to so great straites as euer it was he is not of the minde that the Bishops are required by the same necessitie to performe this dutie But surely this is too much either negligence in searching or indulgence in iudging and aduising neither ought a learned man and a Diuine as the Author seemeth to be to open to the Prelates of the Church who are as it were by a certaine storme caried into the same licence of liuing I say to open them so easie a way to forsake their dutie that they may suppose that they ought not to be so ready in these daies to Martirdome as to raise warre against euill Princes who it is certaine that without warres they can neuer be reduced into order and depriued of their kingdomes How much righter were they who whether they were the first of the Iesuites or of some other Order for I haue it onely by report presented themselues to the Cardinals at Rome and euen as they passed in state according to the manner did very sharpely reprooue their effeminatenesse their ryot their carelesnesse because that the most turbulent tempest of the Lutherane heresie being risen a little before that time taught the Prelates of the Church an other manner of life and required other fashions at their hands Therefore by these it is plaine that the Author of the answere is much deceiued in laying the reason of the difference in the dissimilitude of those ancient and these times as far as concernes the dutie state and condition of the Bishops and Prelates of the Church CHAP. VII THe other reason which he brings in is nothing better That the Church forsooth did not therefore beare with Constantius Valens and others for that they lawfully succeeded in the Empire no more than they did with Leo Henrie and Childerike which no lesse lawfully succeed but because she could not without hurt of the people correct them these she could For this is most false and I woonder that Bellarmine followed this reason elsewhere I say it is most false that the Church could not coerce and chastise them as easily as these I will not say more easily and without the hurt of the people whether she would haue attempted the matter by armes or vse some policie and the meane of some deuout person for at this time the whole world was Christian vnder Constantius as is euident by a letter of Constantine the Great to the Church recorded by Eusebius and Nicephorus and the greatest part of it orthodoxe so as they wanted not strength to oppresse the Emperour if they had held it lawfull or godly to take vp armes and contend against a lawfull Prince And truely it is credible that God would honour with a victorie both easily and not very costly for bloud his owne souldiers who should vndertake such a warre not of hatred or ambition but of a meere zeale to preserue the Church from ruine Moreouer there was a great multitude of monkes in Egypt and Lybia and an innumerable companie of other godly men of all sorts swarmed all ouer Asia and Europe amongst whom no doubt there were many of no lesse zeale then that wretch who murdered Henry the 3 king of France but furnished with more knowledge and grace whereby they prescribed a meane to inconsiderate headlong and rash zeale These men if it had beene lawfull might easily haue dispatched the Emperour without tumult of warre and noyse of armes and if so be the Church had had any power ouer him they might haue put the same in execution without any harme to the people What should I speake of Iulianus the successor of Constantius Could not the Church thinke you chasten him without any harme at all to the people when as being a shamefull Apostate and such a one as neuer was found amongst Christians he had his whole armie which he coÌ„manded consisting of Christians for euen after his death when Iouinianus being by generall consent chosen Emperor had proclaimed that himselfe was a Christian therfore that he would not coÌ„mand an army of Infidels the souldiers answered and generally cried out Neuer feare noble Emperour neither doe you refuse our gouernment as vnwoorthie for you are like to be a Commander of Christians who are brought vp in the discipline of pietie for we are Christians and those which be of the elder sort learned Constantinus his instruction the younger sort of Constantius Neither did he that died last rule so long time as could serue the turne to settle the poison in those few that had been circumuented abused by him I could wish that both the author of that booke the Reader of this would consider diligently Whether the Church seconded with so great power had not been able with ease to take that Emperour away without any harme of the people especially seeing the Emperors were at that time created by the souldiers alone who amongst those first times of Religion and hope of Martyrdome esteemed nothing more honorable then to beleeue and obey their Prelates deliuering to them the law and will of God Now if they had learned in those Schooles of the most holy Fathers that it was lawfull for the Church to depriue a wicked Prince of his gouernment and that it is lawfull for such subiects to take away and murder such a Ruler either by open force or secret practise there was nothing more easie for them then to depriue Iulian of his empire or take away his life and without any tumult or danger or publike losse to suffect an other at their pleasure in his place For now the right of nominating the Emperour was by long custome supposed to belong to the armie as also in very deed Iouinianus first and after Valentinianus both confessors of Christ after the death of of Iulianus were both aduanced to the Empire by the same armie Nay what will you say that although the whole armie would not haue conspired against the enemy of Christ yet those souldiers alone whom we mentioned out of Nazianzen in our books De Regno together with Iouinianus the Confessor would with little a doe haue
whence was that of his who was both King and Prophet against thee only haue I sinned And afterward For where as according to the Apostle it is a fearefull thing for euery man to fall into the hands of the liuing God yet for Kings who haue none aboue them besides him to feare it will be so much the more fearefull that they may offend more freely then others I can call in more and that very many to testifie the truth of this matter but what needs any more In the mouth of two or three witnesses let euery word stand If the assertors of the contrary opinion can bring forth so many testimonies of ancient fathers or indeed but any one wherein it is expresly written that the Church or the supreme head thereof the Bishop hath temporall power ouer secular Kings and Princes and that he may coerce and chastise them by temporall punishments any way either directly or indirectly or inflict any penalty either to the whole Kingdome or any part of it I shall be content that the whole controuersie shall be iudged on their side without any appeale from thence For indeed I desire nothing so much as that a certaine meane might be found by which the iudgement of the contrary side might be clearely confirmed But while I expect that in vaine in the meane time the truth caries me away with her conquered and bound into the contrary part Therefore I demand this now of the aduersaries whether it be likely that those ancient and holy fathers who haue written of the great power and immunity of Kings and Emperors were so negligent that of very carelesnesse they did not put in mind the Princes of their time of this temporall power of the Pope or that they left not this remembrance if they made any consigned vnder their hands in writing To the end that Princes should feare not only the secret iudgements of God but also the temporall iurisdiction of the Church and Pope by which they might be throwen downe from their seates so oft as the Church or the Pope who is the head thereof shall thinke it fit in regard of religion and the common weale certainly to be silent and to haue concealed so great a matter if it was true was to abuse Kings and Princes whom they had perswaded both by writings and preachings that they could be iudged by God only in temporall matters Or shall we imagine that they were so vnskilfull and ignorant of the authority of the Church that they knew not that it was indued with such a power Or in a word that they were so fearefull and narrow minded that they durst not tell the Princes that which they knew If none of these things can be imputed and charged on those ancient fathers why I pray you should we now embrace any new power which is grounded vpon no certaine either authority or reason but in these last ages deuised and thrust vpon the people by certaine fellowes who are seruâ—ly and basely addicted to the Pope and so lay a new and strange yoke vpon Princes CHAP. IX I Haue already plainly shewed that the last part of the second reason of the Aduersaries is most false which is That the Church therefore tolerated Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other heretike Princes because she could not chastise them without the hurt of the people Now will I prooue that the latter part is euen as false to wit that Henrie the IV. Emperour and other Princes ouer whom the later Popes haue arrogated to themselues temporall power might be coerced and chastised by the Church without hurt of the people Which before that I take in hand I doe hartely request not onely the friendly Reader but euen the Aduersaries themselues that the question being discussed they would weigh with themselues and iudge truly and sincerely whether it were not more easie for the Church to punish those first Princes by the aforesaid waies and meanes then to reduce into order the said Henry the IV by Rodolphus the Sweuian or Philip the Faire by Albert of Austria Of whom the one scorned and repressed the arrogancie of the Pope the other after diuers battles fought with diuers successe at the length in the last battle defeated his Competitor and Enemie whom the Pope had set vpon him and as for the Pope of whom he was excommunicate he banished him out of Rome and plagued him with perpetuall banishment With how great hurt and spoile to the people the Pope laboured to execute that temporall power vpon Heâ—ry the XII Oâ—to Frisingen witnesseth whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for bloud and for learning and for integritie of lifeâ— who write of the Excommunication and deposition of the said Henrie done by Gregorie the VII in this manner I read and read againe the actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and finde no where that before this man any of them was excommunicate or depriued of his Kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse any man thinke it is to be accompted for an Excommunication that Philip was for a small time placed amongst the Pâ—nitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome and that Theodosius was â—equestredor suspended from entring into the Church by blessed Ambrose for his bloudie murder In which place it is to be obserued that Otto doth plainly professe that he findes in former ages no example of priuation of a Kingdome although hee propounded these two instances touching Excommunication if not true at least hauing a shew of true ones And afterward within a few lines he writeth thus But what great mischiefes how many warres and hazardes of warres followed thereof how oft miserable Rome was besieged taken spotled because Pope was set vp againe Pope and King aboue King it is a paine to remember To be short the rage of this storme did so hurry and wrap within it so many mischiefes so many schismes so many dangers both of soules and bodies that the same euen of it selfe by reason both of the crueltie of the persecution and the continuance thereof were sufficient to prooue the vnhappinesse of mans miserie Vpon which occasion that time is by an Ecclesiasticall writer compared to the thicke darknesse of Egypt For the foresaid Bishop Gregory is banished the cuie by the King and Gibert Bishop of Rauenna is thrust into his place Further Gregorie remaining at Salernum the time of his death approching is reported to haue said I haue loued iustice and hate â— iniquitie therefore I die in banishment Therefore because the kingdome being cut off by the Church was grieuously 〈◊〉 in her Prince the Church also bereaued of so great a Pastor who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeale and authoritie conceaued no small griefe Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people They that write that the Bishop of Rome whom they meane in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperour because hee could chastise him without
〈◊〉 for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus forced the Queene to depart out of Illiricum and to pay a great yeerely tribute Will any man heere say that the â—eâ—iaâ—ites Troianes Illyrians were vanquished and repressed by the Leuite Menclaus or Coruncanus now dead and not rather by them who for their sakes tooke armes and punished the enemies In like manner will any say it is the ecclesiastike Common-wealth which bridles and reduceth into order the temporall playing vpon them with much iniurious and insolent demeanour and not rather an other temporall state which enters in armes for the sake of the Ecclesiastike republique and without whose helpe the Church her selfe and all her Orders would lie troden and trampled vnder foote What if there bee no temporall state which will or dare contest with this state which is enemie to the Ecclesiastike common-wealth by what meanes then will she reuenge herselfe To vse few wordes although we grant them their comparison and conclusion there can nothing bee made of it but that the Pope hath such a power to dispose of temporall matters of Christians and to depose Princes as either the King of France is knowen to haue ouer the English Spaniards or other neighbour people who doe him wrong or any of these vpon the State and Kings of France if they haue offended them which power in what manner and of what proportion it is can onely be determined and decided by the sword CHAP. XIX THese although they may suffice for the refuting of the second reason yet least in these writings of this most learned man I should passe ouer any thing which because it is either vntouched or negligently handled might beget any error or cast any scruple into the Reader it is a matter worth the paines to examine and sift what that might be which for the strengthning of his reason he brings out of S. Bernard in the bookes de Consid. ad Eugen Bernard indeed aduiseth that the materiall sword is to be exercised by the souldiers hand at the becke of the Priest and commandement of the Emperour which we surely confesse for warres both are vndertaken more iustly and discharged more happily when the Ecclesiasticall holines doth agree conspire with kingly authoritie But we must note he attributeth only to the Priest a Becke that is the consent and desire to wage warre but to the Emperour the commandement and authoritie Whereby it is euident that hee speaketh in no other respect that the Materiall sword belongeth to the Church then for that in a Christian estate although the authoritie and command for warre be in the power of Emperours Kings and Princes yet warres are with more iustice waged where the consent of the Ecclesiastike power comes in which being guided by the spirit of God can more sharpely and truly iudge between right and wrong godly or vngodly But what if the Emperour will not draw his sword at the becke of the Priest nay what if he shall draw it against the Priests beck and assent doth S. Bernard in this case giue to the Priest any temporall power ouer the Emperour for this is it which we seeke in this place and whereon our whole disputation turneth surely none at all But he rather teacheth that none belongeth to him whenas he saith that the Materiall sword by which sword the soueraigne power temporall is signified may not bee exercised by the Church but onely by the hand of the souldier and commandement of the Emperour Which same point Gratianus deliuers more plainly being almost S. Bernards equall When Peter saith he who was first of all the Apostles chosen by the Lord did vse the materiall word that he might defend his Master from the iniurie of the Iewes he heard Turne thy sword into the seabbard for euery one who takes the sword shall perish by the sword as if it had beene told him openly Hitherto it was lawfull for the and thy Predecessors to prosequâ—te the enemies of God with the temporall sword heereafter for an example of Patience turne thy sword that is hitherto granted to thee into the scabbard and yet exercise the spirituall sword which is the word of God in the kiling of thy former life for euery one besides him or his authoritie who vseth lawfull power who as the Apostle saith beareth not the sword without cause to whom also euery soule ought to be subiect I say euery one who without such a warrant receiueth the sword shall perish by the sword If these of Bernard and Gratian bee true it can by no meanes be that the Pope should with any right exercise temporall power vpon the Emperour or other secular Princes for it cannot be exercised but by the sword and the sword cannot be by the souldier drawen but by their commandement and so this temporall power would prooue vtterly vaine and vnprofitable in the person of the Pope when as the execution thereof should bee denied him Vnlesse some Emperour perchance should be besotted with so fatall a fatuitie that he would command the souldiers to beare armes against himselfe or should be indued with so great sanctitie and iustice that he doe by his edict signifie that they should not spare himselfe if hee should offend Hitherto belongs that which S. Ambrose writeth The law saith he forbiddeth not to strike and therefore peraduenture Christ said to Peter offering two swordes It is enough as though it were lawfull vntill the Gospell that there might be in the Law an instruction of equitie in the Gospell perfection of goodnesse Besides we must vnderstand that that place of the Gospell touching two swords which they obiect vnto vs is not necessarily to be vnderstood of the Temporall and Spirituall swords yea that it is far more agreeable to the speech of our Sauior in that place that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall sword and the sword of the Passion as Amb. expoundeth it learnedly and holily in that place For Christ in that last speech with the Disciples before his Passion admonished them that they should be sent to preach the Gospell of a few other manner of conditions after his death came they should receiue this commandement Euntes in Mundum vniuersum predicate Euangelium vniuersae Creaturae then before they had beene sent by him when as yet he liued with them in the earth as if he had said hitherto I haue so sent you as you haue needed neither bagge nor girdle nor shooes but heereafter I will send you to preach the Gospell and you will haue neede of a bagge and a scrip to wit of Care and Patience and also of the two swords the Spirituall and that of the Passion whereof it is said A sword shall pierce thy soule for there is a Spirituall sword saith Ambrose in that place that thou shouldest sell thy patrimony purchase the word whereby the naked inward reines of the soule are cloathed and furnished There is also a sword of
say or by â—gâ—â—e and by interpretation to 〈…〉 of such a position And indeed that I 〈◊〉 speake freely they doe with two much liberty of interpretation abuse S. Paulâ— doctrine who out of that first 〈…〉 to the Corinthians doe collect that it was 〈…〉 Christians to depose Ethinke or Heretike Prin 〈…〉 other in their places Indeed the Apo 〈…〉 in that place rebuke the Christians to that they 〈◊〉 one another with sutes had no iudgment among them at all And also for that they drew one another to the Benâ—â—es oâ— Ethnike and infidell Iudges to whom euery Christian name was hatefull And yet he did this not that he â—ould teach them or signifie to them by this 〈◊〉 that Ethnike Magistrates had no iurisdiction oâ—â—â— Christianâ— or that the Christians might by any de 〈◊〉 bring to passe that Ethnikes should carry no politike doâ—◠〈…〉 them But that he might shew that it was a 〈…〉 the religion and profession of a Christian that they who were newly regenerate in Christ and were called into his fellowship had â—ather to maintaine Law 〈◊〉 and questions before Infidell Iudges then to pacific and compose their businesse and controuersies begun amongst them by the iudgement and arbitration of the Brethren which is of the Christians Therefore the Apostle doth not by this speech disanull the authoritie of the Heathen neither signifieth that the Christians may make defection from them but onely misliketh and reprooueth the peeuishnesse and stiffenesse of certaine Christians that whereas they had brethren that is men of the same religion with them who being by common coâ—â—ent appointed Aâ—bitratouâ—s might with a louing and friendly affection iustly and wisely disâ—eptate and order their causes within their domestike and priuate walles not being contented â—ith these would contentiously appeale to the great sâ—andall of religion to such Iudges as were both without saith and iustice Whencâ— S. Thâ—â—as vpon that place saith But it seemeth to bee otherwise which â—s said 1. Pâ—t 1. â—e yeâ— sâ—biect to euery humane Creature for God either to the Kiâ—g as the souâ—raigne or Lâ—â—utenantâ—â—â—â—t as it were from him for it appertaines to the aâ—tâ—oritie of tâ—â— Prince to iuâ—ge of his subiects Therefore it iâ— against the 〈◊〉 of God to fâ—râ—id that his iuâ—gâ—ment should be 〈…〉 Iâ—fideâ—l But we must say that the Apoâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 but that the 〈…〉 being â—laced vnder â—â—fidell Prâ—â—ces may make their appâ—â—rance before them if theâ— be unâ—mâ—ned â—â—r this were agaiâ—st the suâ—iâ—ction which iâ— due to Priâ—câ—s but â—e forâ—â—â—â— thâ—m that they should not be 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ard to runne to the iudgement â—eates of Infidels Vpon the selfe same place Theâ—deret Hierâ—me do almost write the selfe same things The Apostle saith he doth not heere forbid the â—aitâ—â—ull liuing vnder vnâ—aithfull Princes to appeare before thâ—m when they are summâ—ned for this were against the â—ubiection which is due to Princes but forbids their â—astie and voluntarie running to infidell Iudges in those busineâ—◠〈◊〉 which may be determined by the faithfull Therefore the Apostle in that place commands nothing which may either take away or diâ—inish the iurisdiction and authoritie of infidell Iudges ouer Christians or any way giue preiudice to the same â—ea he could not iustly command any thing against that subiection since it is of the law of Nature being confirmed by God his authoritie as by S. Ambroâ—e his witnesse the Apostle himselfe teacheth other where Therefore this constitution of Iudges whereof we speake did by no meanes exempt Christians from the subiection and iurisdiction of Ethnike Magistrates but onely tooke from them the necessitie of appealing to them when as they should haue Iudges constituted by common consent among themselues by whose arbitrations the questions that rise among them might be composed Now indeed these Iudges were no better then Vmpires without authoritie without power to draw any person before them exercising onely a voluntarie iurisdiction and therefore if either a crosse and ouertiâ—â— aâ—t Christian or any I thinke had called a Christian before an 〈◊〉 fidell Iudge this authoritie of these Christian Iudges had nothing auailed him that was thus called but that he must needs present himselfe before the heathen beâ—â—h nay he were in conscience bound to present himselfe by reason of the subiection which we owe our superiours by the law of Nature Moreouer if a man doe looke more wishly on that place of the Apostle he that of serue that in that place the Apostle takes paines to instruct their Christian mindes to Fuangelicall perfection which is a matter rather of counsell then of precept seeing he exhorts them that they would rather take wrong and suffer losse then so to â—â—nuase suâ—es among themselues According to that of our Sauiour If any man shall strike the one the right cheeke hold him thy other and he that will goe to law with thee and take away thy coate let him haue thy clâ—ake also And so the Fathers of the Church Ambrose Primastus Theodoret and all the rest vnderstood that place for that he saith Now surely there is altogether a fault amongst you that you haue iudgements amongst you why do you not rather suffer losse That vnlesse it be vnderstood of the preseruation of life or of the most perfect state of life cannot possibly be admitted seeing it is a plaine â—ase amongst all men that they doe not offend who being oppressed with iniuries and contumelies desire to be releeued and succoured by the Iudge Therefore S. Paul in that place doth like a good father of many children who worthily rebukes his children that fall out among themselues both for that by dissentions and iarrings they violate brotherly loue as also for that they had not beene more willing to end and determine the controuersie which did arise among them rather by the aduise of the brethren then wrap them in the noise and tumults of Iudiciall courtes and decide them by the verdict of strangers Seeing these thing are thus good God what a miserable blindnesse and ignorance is this or indeed a wilful craft and cunning to seeke to gather out of those words of Paul that it had beene lawfull for the Christians to depose all I thinke Emperours or Magistrates if they had had strength and power to effect the same Seeing especially that the Apostle doth other where command all Christians of necessity to be subiect to those Ethnike powers non solum propterâ—â—am least if they should practise defection they should suffer punishment from these Magistrates whose displeasure the had incurred sed etiam propter conscientiam for because they could not with a sound and safe conscience withdraw themselues from their obedience and subiection which is the ordinance of God or resist and withstand the same For this is of necessity to be subiect for conscience sake or propter Deum for God as S. Peter commandeth Moreouer the first Christians after the Apostles did ingenuously confesse that the
Emperour although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith yet was ordained of God and was inferour to God alone Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection not because they could not but because they lawfully might not Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only and the lesse could not depose the greater how could the Christian subiects depose him What doth either the Apostle fight with himselfe or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another Or euen those ancient fathers who succeeded the Apostles were they ignorant of their whole â—â—gâ—t and â—â—â—ledge against Iâ—nded or Heretâ—kâ— Kings and Mâ—gâ—â—traâ—â—â— For that they had force and strength equall 〈◊〉 and more then fuilâ—â—t to eâ—ecute an exploâ—t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very largely Thereâ—ore it is â—â—â—dent by these that the authoritie of the Apostle Paâ—â— doth nothing appâ—â—taâ—â— to the former proposition of Bellarâ—â—â—e touching the deposing of Kings and therefore that hee committed a great error that in a matter so serious and of so great moment hee hath deâ—â—ded the Reader with a false shadoâ— of the Apostle authoritie If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apoâ—â—lâ—â— direction had taken aâ—aâ— the authoritie poâ—er and â—â—nstâ—â—tion of the msidell Iudges or in aâ—â— paâ—â—hadal â—â—gaâ—â—d the same or had exempted Christians from their subieâ—â—â—n there could nothing haue been stronger thâ—â— â—â—â—â—unes argument nothing more trâ—â—â— thâ—n â—â—s opâ—â—â— But because that constitution of Iudgeâ— dâ—â— no more prâ—iâ—dice â—eathâ—â— Iâ—â—â—â—diction theâ— the châ—sing of Peâ—â—e Kings at â—â—â—uetide or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the â—antoâ— youth in the 〈…〉 is prâ—iudâ—câ—all to the true Kings and Magistrateâ— it iâ— certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be draâ—â—â— from thence But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question I must adâ—â—â—â—tise you that S. Thomas is in some places of that opinion that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethnâ—ke Princes may iustly be taken away by the â—â—â—tence or ordination of the Church hauing the authoritie of God as he saith S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me but not so great as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canonâ—call Scripture or that it should ouercome either reason or law Whose ghost I honour and admire his doctrine But yet there is no reason why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie for his opinion and also because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie And the reason which he brings because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull who are translated into the sonnes of God An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man as though if any man deserue to be depriued of oâ—ce benefice dignitie authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth may therefore presently be spoiled by another rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same or by another that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him Who knoweth not that the Chancellor Constable and other officers made by the King doe deserue to loose their place if in any thing they abuse their office but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them so long aâ— the Prince on whom onely they doe depend â—uâ—ereth them to execute their once In like manner infidell Princes although by the desert of 〈◊〉 â—â—fidelitie they deserue to 〈◊〉 their authoritie yet because they are constituted by God and are inferiour to him alone they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie and deposed but by God himselfe And indeed the same Thomas in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul aboue recited in this Chapter sheweth plainly enough that the Church hath not that authoritie whereby shee may depose â—thinkes for he saith it is against the law of God to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes Now it is sure that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God further to take from infidell Princes the right of Lordship and Dignitie is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement Therefore the Church hath not that power And let any man who will peruse all Stories he shall finde no where that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie to iudge Princes infidell or heathen Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall as Thomas thinketh in that place but for want of rightfull power because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull according to that of the Apostle What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without and also because Princes appointed by God haue God onely Iudge ouer them by whom only they may be deposed Neither is it to the matter that Paul when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels addeth that only Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed for he said not that as though for that cause onely seruants should obey their Masters but that especially for that cause they should doe it and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe which could arise thereof that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters to wit the publike scandall of the whole Church of God and of Christian doctrine Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will if they might doe it without scandall to the Church for they should not commit flat theft in their owne persons by the law of Nations But he would shew that they did not onely sinne which in other places he plainly teacheth but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault and aboue all things to be auoided Therefore now it remaineth that according to my promise I make proofe that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes is false euen out of the Prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 and granted by himselfe The matter is plaine and easie to be done for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes in all Ciuill causes as other men his words are these I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because indeed hee was his Iudge although not of right for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere lib. 2. cap. 96.
a kingdome forfeited they haue him onely their Iudge and not the Church or the Pope Whereby it doth easily appeare how captious those reasons and conclusions are which Sanders from whom Bellarmine hath receiued this stuffe of his doth deduce out of those manner of promises made either secretly or expresly For as concerning those formes of asking and answering which he with many idle words and falsely deuiseth betweene the Pope and the Princes which come to the Church we must answer that they are fondly conceiued by him and that they neither ought nor are accustomed to passe in the admittance of Heathen Princes which come to the Church least the Church should seeme either to suspect them or to diuine and conceiue ill of them for the time to come Therfore their burning loue towards Christ and present confession of their faith whereby they in general tearms promise that they wil giue there names to Christ and become children of the Church and will renounce the diuel and his works and keep the commandements of God and the Church and such like are cause sufficient enough that they should be receiued All which matters they doe indeed promise to Christ the Church receiuing the promise as his Spouse in whose boosome they are regenerate or the Bishop himselfe not as a man but as a Minister of Christ God himselfe discharging a Deputies office heerein and therefore the obligation is principally taken to Christ himselfe by the Church or the Pope Whereby although they haue also promised all other things which Sanders hath comprehended in that forged forme of his and shall afterwards neglect or wholy contemne that couenant agreed on they can be punished by him onely into whose words they did sweare and who is the Lord of all temporall estates and whom they haue for their onely Iudge ouer them intemporall matters but not by him to whom the care onely of spirituall matters and to take the promise is committed And to these spirituall matters are those things most like and most resemble them which we see daily to be obserued in the ciuill Gouernment They who aspire to the succession of Feudes or Fees whether they come in by hereditarie right or by any other title cannot enioy them vnlesse they first be admitted into his clientele and seruice who is Lord of the Fee that is vnlesse they in words conceiued doe take the oath of fealtie to the Lord which they commonly call Homagium or Hominium But if it be the Kings fee to which they succeed the King doth seldome in his owne Person take the oath of fealtie but executeth that businesse for the most part by his Chancellor or soem other Deputie especially assigned for that purpose Therefore the Chancellor when hee admits to Fees and Honors great Personages swearing into the Kings wordes he dischargeth the same office vnder the King in a Ciuill administration and iurisdiction which the Pope doth vnder Christ in the spirituall gouernment of the Church when he receiues Princes comming vnto her by taking the oath of their faithfulnesse and pietie towards God And the Chancellor the Tenant once admitted although after he breake his oath and commit the crime which they call Felonie may in no cause take away the Fee which is the proper right of the King alone and not granted to the Chancellor at all So neither can the Pope depriue of Kingdomes and authoritie or any way temporally punish Princes receiued into the Church although they offend grieuouslie afterward or forsake the faith Because that is reserued to God onely Therfore although Christian Kings and Princes be in the Church and in respect that they are the Children of the Church be inferiour to the church and the Pope notwithstanding in regard that they doe beare a soueraigne rule temporall in the world they are not inferiours but rather superiours and therefore although they haue forfeited their kingdome by secret or expresse couenant yet neither people nor Pope nor church canne take it away from them But onely Almightie God alone from whom is all power and to whom aloue they are inferiour in Ciuill administration And neither shall Bellarmine nor any other be euer able to bring or as I may say to digge out of the monuments of any age any forcible argument whereby he may make it plaine vnto vs that secular Kings and Princes when they were receiued to the Faith by the Church did in such manner renounce their interest as both to lay downe altogether the temporall authoritie which they had receiued of God and also to subiect themselues to the Church to be iudged in Ciuill affaires and to be chastised with temporall punishment And if none of them can demonstrate this they must needs confesse that Kings and Princes did after the faith receiued retaine their Kingdomes and Empires in the same Right the same Libertie and Authoritie wherein they possessed them before such time as they came to the Church because as the Aduersaries doe confesse Lex Christineminem priuat iure suo If therefore before Baptisme they had no Iudge aboue them in temporall matters but God alone neither ought they to haue any after Baptisme But we haue spoken more of this matter in the refutation of the first reason In this place I stand not much vpon Bozius his dotages Now for that he vnderlaies after this fourth reason in the words following For he is not fit to receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme who is not ready to serue Christ and for his sake to loose whatsoeuer he hath For the Lord saith Lu. 14. if any man come to me and hateth not father and mother and wife and children yea and euen his owne life he cannot be my Disciple I cannot tell to what end he vseth these words Surely no man denies it But what of it Such a reason belongs no more to the purpose then that which is furthest from the matter nor that neither which followeth in the same place Besides saith he the Church should grieuously erre if she should admit any King which would with impunitie cherish euery manner of sect and defend heretikes and ouerthrow Religion This is most true But as I said it belongs nothing to the purpose for now the question is not of that matter but of the temporall power of the Church or of the Pope who is the substitute head thereof vnder Christ I meane whether he haue that power whereby he may chastise with temporall punishments Kings and Princes duely receiued if after they shall breake the faith and forsake the dutie vndertaken by them in the lauer of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proued or disprooued by these correllaries and additions and for this cause we passe them ouer CHAP. XXV THe fift and last reason is drawen from his Pastorall charge and office in these wordes When it was said to Peter Feed my sheepe Iohn the last all the power was giuen him which was necessarie to maintaine the
because they are separated not by humane but by diuine power who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church by translation deposition or cession For quoth he not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome who beareth the person not of a pure man but of the true God in earth weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church dissolueth not by humane but rather by diuine authoritie Thus he These manner of speeches and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour that they suppose whatsoeuer is done by the Pope is done by God himselfe because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning I confesse that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words nor more hard for the sense that in expounding the same the wits of all Interpreters doe faile For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly plainly and cleerely then this That not man but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue Or what followeth more rightly of any thing then this of that position Ergo that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie which is consummate carnall copula betweene maried persons And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion and therefore wee must confesse that that whereof it followeth is false also because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true Which when Hostiensis had obserued when I say hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason But that reason quoth he sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it is not sufficient vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood for by that it would follow that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie But for all that Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth For that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie because as he saith before carnall copulation by a common dissent it may be dissolued the Popes authoritie comming betweene arg cap. 2 cap. expublico de conuers coniugat Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason for as touching the rescripts alleged by him and if there be any such like they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus in which case there is no neede of the Pope authoritie to interuene or any pontificiall dispensation but that they are warranted by meere right and the common helpe of the law who in that manner doe procure a separation and breake off matrimonie But that a matrimonie ratified and not yet consummate may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope by the common dissent of the parties that wee are to denie constantly and that according to the most learned Diuines For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or essence of matrimonie for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction and consent of mindes whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other But the procreation of children and the bed-fellowship for that cause is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie but to the end Hence is it said by the heathen that Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit Not the fellowship of the bedde but the consent of the mindes makes mariages And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions Otherwise surely that first mariage which God instituted in Paradise was not a mariage vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence began to prouide for issue then which what can be more absurd Moreouer there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church no authoritie of Fathers no decretall Epistle of the Pope in a word there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour matrimonie ratified although not consummate Quos Deus conâ—unxit homo ne separet Nay and hee cannot except vnlesse it be true that they who being contracted are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie are not ioined by God But there is in this matter as in others so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law that they are not ashamed to auerre that not onely matrimonie ratified but not consummate and that against the common iudgement of the Diuines but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction may be dissolued by the Pope aswell as by God himselfe which if it should bee true how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them who haue grace and power with the Pope or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes being blinded with desire of money J leaue to others to iudge But there is no cause why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons with words of the present time Contracted may in no case bee dissolued except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion For it is not credible that so learned and godly a Bishop had either so sodainely forgot himselfe or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius CHAP. XXIX NOw if any aske my opinion and interpretation of them I am not afraid to say as in a matter of this obscurity that I am at a stand notwithstanding that I doe thinke that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that the mind of this good Bishop and the sense of the wordes doe differ which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning or do omit some necessary particle or exception for to make the constitution plaine and entire for otherwise it is not likely that hee who denieth that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke that he may haue propertie of goods or marry a wife would affirme that the Pope may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate What is the matter then I will speake what I thinke I haue obserued that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine that although hee compare each mariage in this that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely yet where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop and Vicar of Iesu Christ he conioineth
them together no more nor makes mention of carnall matrimony but onely of spirituall which not deemed to be separated by man but by God himselfe then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered not out of humane but rather out of diuine authority by translation deposition or cession by which silence and omission of carnall Matrimony he doth sufficiently implie that in the manner of separation it doth differ and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this viz. the carnall as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner God hath reserued to his own iudgement the dissolution as well of the carnall as of the spirituall matrimony notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter the necessity or commoditie of the Churches c. may dissolue them which when he doth not man but God doth separate whose Person the Pope beareth in earth Now why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage and not a carnall also the reason is plaine and easie because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe and euerie way doth belong to the ordination gouernement and oeconomie of the Church which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage seeing they are not able without it to execute and discharge the office committed to them And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes themselues as Hierarches that is spirituall Gouernors doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters persons of the Church wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same who hath by name committed this dispensation and procuration to them But carnall matrimony was instituted not for the ordination of the Church but onely for procreation of issue and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature and to be common to all nations and countries neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church but that it is a Sacrament in the new law containing the my sterie of God and the soule of Christ and the Church And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors the power to dissolue the same They haue inough to discerne iudge if it be a mariage that they may know if it bee a sacrament Therefore although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage viz by remouing all impediments which doe arise out of the positiue law and ecclesiasticall constitutions and giue order that it may duly and rightly be contracted which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme yet when as either through the common law permitting or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited it was contracted hath no power for any cause in the world to relaxe and dissolue the same Neither doth it belong to the matter that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall we see often that separation is made of those persons as haue liued a long time together vnder the conceit and shew of mariage For neither the Pope in that case nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority doth dissolue any matrimony but by his iudgement declareth that the matrimony which indeede was contracted de fasto or was falsly supposed to be a mariage was no mariage at all enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together to depart one from an other and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance But this is not to dissolue Matrimony or to separate persons lawfully ioined as concerning the bond of mariage Whereby it is euident that both Innocentius the Interpreter who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name and also Ioh Andr. who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined let no man separate Of their owne authority say they but man doth not separate carnall matrimony when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope but God himselfe by whose authority those constitutions were made As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons and make a nullitie in the law because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted to breake or loose the band no constitution either of Pope or church can do Otherwise the Apostle in those words The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth but if her husband doe sleepe she is free I say he did ill to make mention of death onely if shee may be free by some other meanes viz. the Popes constitutions the mariage it selfe being dissolued And now since these things are thus it is time to returne from this by-way into which the vnreasonable flattery and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs into that path from whence wee haue digressed CHAP. XXX IT is now positiuely set downe and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters that the Pope cannot make grace to any of the naturall and diuine law or as we vsually speake now a dayes cannot dispense against the law of nature and of God and grant that that may bee done without guilt which God and nature haue forbidden or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done and this not onely the Diuines but also the Canonists of the better sort doe very earnestly maintaine Therefore this is a most grounded Axâ—ome whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter Surely we do admit his proposition which is That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues that hee may driue them away by all the meanes he is able Wee admit also the Assumption That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God are heretickes Where hee concludeth in this manner Ergo If a Prince of a sheepe or ramme turne Wolfe that is to say of a Christian turne an hereticke the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also may charge the people that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects Surely a very vnsound collection In stead whereof in good Logicke should bee put this conclusion Ergo If any Prince of a sheepe or a ramme turne Wolfe the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can For this ariseth rightly out of the former
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
No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours as concerning temporall matters Ergo hee had no temporall authority ouer them that hee might iudge them in temporalties The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour a superiour I meane in that very point whereof the iudgement is made For as we haue often said Par in parem non habet imperium And in nature it cannot be that one and the same person should be both inferiour superiour in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same matter no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries when as they affirme and clearely confirme by reasons That the exception vnlesse you wil say exemption of Cleriques in ciuill causes aswell concerning their persons as Gods was brought or by the law of man For as Augustine witnesseth humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes as we shewed in the last Chapter before And that euen of their meere and free bounty for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church to grant the Clergy those priuiledges seeing it is not found to be expressed prouided by no law of God And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right interest as thēselus confesse we haue often signified And therfore as their owne learning carieth Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties By all this discourse it followeth that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges of exemptions and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope and other Clergie persons Therefore that which might be done let vs suppose it was done that is that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie or priuiledge doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince as his fellow Bishops and Brethren in France Spaine and Britanie and in other kingdomes doe Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties to whome hee is temporally subiect Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours then he had before through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties But if any bee so fond perhaps to say that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church viz. to iudge and depose euill princes but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered that he could not exercise it so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties But now after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes made himselfe a temporall princes there is nothing to hinder but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation I must answere him nothing else but that the things he speaketh are not onely false but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnpossible setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse and which is most true that is to say that the Popes before such time as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction were subiect to them both de iure and de facto For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power for that it is not competent but by right of superiority Now it implieth a contradiction that the Pope was by right superiour and by right inferiour at the same time in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature and the most holy rule of life they must needes bee in a great error who affirme that this soueraigne authority wherof we speake was by Christ conferred on Peter and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons and full weake patched vp together of similitudes comparisons allegories and such like stuffe as you may see by that which wee haue refuted All which are to be reiected and little esteemed when as by the position and granting of them some absurditie doth follow as in this point or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines The third argument saith he is this A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe as is conuenient for them Ergo the Pope may and ought command Christians those things and inforce them to these things to which euery one of them in his condition is bound that is constraine euery one to serue God in that manner wherein they ought according to their state and condition But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it and vnlesse they doe it to enforce them by excommunication and other conuenient meanes Surely I see not what is contained in this argument which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode Now the Popes reuenewes although they be great would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion for hee saith to enforce by Excommunication and other conuenient meanes meaning Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke not a temporall Shepheard but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule