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
subiects to his sect if a maried person beleeuing bee not free from the yoke of the other Mate vnbeleeuing although he will not continue with the beleeuing yoke-fellow without inturie to the faith and contumelie to the Creator As Innocentius III. openly teacheth in cap. Quanto § sivero De Diuort in cap. ex parte De conuers coniugat adeo vt Panorm in illum § Si verò doth say out of the reason there laid That the Church cannot dissolue such a Mariage and free the beleeuing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the vnbeleeuing when as notwithstanding a beleeuing yoke-mate may much more easily be peruerted by a yoke-mate vnbeleeuing then the whole people by a King But the bond of the subiection whereby the people is tied to the King since it proceeds both from naturall and diuine Law seemeth much more hard to be dissolued then that of maried Persons between themselues that from thence a man may easily prooue that the Church can doe no more in one then in the other But if he vnderstand his argument of the later maried persons the answer is easie out of the same Decretall Epistle of Innocent to wit That betweene such couples the Mariage is not good as much as appertaines to the indissoluble bonds of Matrimony And therefore such kind of maried parsons haue full liberty to dissolue the matrimony that they may depart either with consent and good likeing or with mislike and displeasure and the one of them euen against the liking of the other may by refusall and diuorse at his pleasure dissolue that knot of mariage for the woman may as wel send letters of diuorse to the man as the man to the wife For saith he although the Matrimony among Infidels be true because they goe together according to the commandement of the lawes yet it is not firme But amongst the beleeuers it is both true and firme because the Sacrament of faith being once admitted is neuer lost but makes firme the Sacrament of mariage that it continues in the maried persons while that continueth It is no wonder then if the maried persons brought to the faith be free from the fellowship and power of his fellow remayning in Infidelity when as although both had continued in Infidelity it had beene euen as free for each of them to depart from the other by diuorse to dissolue mariage because in the beginning there passed no forme and rate bond of Obligation betweene them And therefore the Apostle doth not command but aduise that the beleeuing wife should not depart from the vnbeleeuing husband if he be willing to stay with hir as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coniâ—giis and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs Which matters since they stand thus surely it followeth that the aduersaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from maried persons to shew that people may be freed from the Regall yoake whether they regard the mariages of the Beleeuers or of the vnbeleeuers Because they are coupled with a most straight and indissoluble knot of society whose band cannot be broken no not by the Church it selfe neither for Infidelity nor Heresie of the one part So as from hence he doth furnish vs with an argument tending rather to maintaine the strength and perpetuity of Regall authority then to dissolue and destroy the same And these are tyed by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church but the husband conuerted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandall may at his pleasure take to him another And againe the woman brought to the faith if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom shee will Seeing therefore there is no firme mariage betweene these and the politike subiection and Kingly domination and rule is ratified and approued amongst all Nations and in euery law as well by diuine as humane power what can be more vnreasonable or fond then to compare and sute them together and to deduce any argument from the society and yoake of vnbeleeuing maried persons which may be shaken of at pleasure to breake the yoake of Regall power and authority and to make the same iudgement of them both as if they were as like as might be CHAP. XXIV I Tould you in the xxiij Chapter that there were fiue reasons in Bellarmine whereby he would proue that the Pope hath temporall power ouer all secular Kings and Princes Christian of which reasons we haue run thorow three and obserued how weake they are and of what diseases they labour it remaineth now that we make our suruay of the other two which are not a whit better conditioned The first whereof is by him laid downe in these words When Kings and Princes come to the Church to be made Christians they are receiued with a Couenant either expresse or secret that they should subiect their Scepters to Christs and promise that they will obserue and defend the faith of Christ yea vnder the penalty of losing their kingdome Ergo. When they prooue Heretikes or hurt Religion they may be iudged by the Church and withall be deposed from their gouernment neither shall any iniury be done them if they be deposed I answer this reason by denying the consequent For although it be true that Princes comming to the Church do submit themselues and their scepters to Christ and euen of their owne accord doe make those promises either secretly or expresly which Bellarmine reporteth yet it is not true neither doth it follow thereof that they may be iudged and deposed by the Church or Pope if they breake their promise or neglect to keepe their Couenant and Oath Because that soueraigne iurisdiction and temporall power of Christ ouer all Kings and the whole world which he hath as the sonne of God doth not appertaine to the Church or Pope but that power onely which Christ assumed to himselfe when he was conuersant amongst men after the manner of men according to which the Pope is Christs Vicar Whereupon Bellarmine himselfe writeth excellently well We say quoth hee that the Pope hath that office which Christ had when after the maner of men he liued amongst men in the world For we may not giue the Pope those offices which Christ hath as God or as animmortall and glorious man but onely those which he had as a mortall man But Christ vsurped no temporall dominion and power when he liued as a man amongst men in earth and therefore neither the Church as the Church nor the Pope as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ can haue any temporall power as the same learned man declareth and prooueth at large in that Chapter Wherefore although Kings and Princes when they come to the Church do subiect their Kingdomes to the Lord Christ and haue Christ their iudge from whom they haue also their Kingdome but because the iudgement is of a temporall affaire when the businesse is touching
distinction If as B. Augustine teacheth hee who hath vowed continence to God ought by no meanes to offend euen with this recompence that he beleeueth he may lawfully marie a wife because she who desires to marie with him hath promised that shee will bee a Christian and so may purchase to Christ the soule of a woman which lieth in the death of infidelitie who if shee marie him is ready to prooue a Christian What excuse shall wee vse to God if wee for the hope of some contingent good should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths which wee haue giuen to God and our King For there is nothing more precious then a soule for which our Lord and Sauiour hath vouchsafed to die And therefore if we may not sinne to gaine that to Christ for what cause shal it be lawfull for vs to sinne Moreouer in that you say that you doe free vs and pronounce vs free from the bond of this dutie that taketh not from vs all scruple of conscience but causeth vs to hang in suspence and the more to doubt of your authoritie because wee know that the commaundement wherein you promise to dispence with vs is ratified by the law of God and Nature and that your Holinesse can neuer no not by vertue of the fulnesse of your power dispense with any in the law of God and Nature Therefore wee will obey you in spirituall matters and the King in temporall matters God commands both wee will performe both To be short the comminations and threatnings which you insert in your Mandate we doe wonder at surely and in some part we feare them but yet we are not altogether so fearefull as to bee more afraid of them then we ought or that we should be so terrified with them as for feare of an vniust Excommunication to denie to our King the iust and lawfull obedience which is due vnto him For although it bee a common speech that euery Excommunication is to bee feared yet we ought to know that an vniust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced but rather him by whom it is denounced Therefore if you strike vs with the edge of your Excommunication because we will not at your commandement transgresse the Commandement of God and malum facere your malediction and curse shal be turned into a blessing so as although we may seeme to be bound outwardly yet inwardly wee remaine as it were loosed and innocent These and such like are the reasons which haue so settled the faith as well of the Clergie as Nobilitie and euen of the whole Commons of France toward their Kings that they haue resolutely withstood certaine Popes who haue earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyaltie and obedience of their Kings and haue scorned the Popes Bulles and the sentence of deposition and depriuation from the kingdome nay more that they haue not beleeued therefore not without reason that they are bound by any Ecclesiastique Censures or may iustly bee enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication For my part surely I doe not see what may iustly bee blamed in the former answer and defense of the people vnlesse it be imputed to them and be sufficient to conuince them of contumacie because they doe not by and by put in execution without all delay or examination of the equitie euery commandement of the Pope as though it were deliuered euen by the voice of God himselfe which I thinke none in his right wits will iudge As for the other points they are grounded on most firme demonstrations most sound reasons and arguments and reasons of diuine and humane law viz. That it is the commandement of God that honour and obedience should be yeelded to Kings and Princes no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded That all the authoritie of the Pope consisteth in spirituall matters That temporall affaires are left to secular Kings and Princes That the Pope is not superiour to Kings in temporall matters and therefore that he cannot punish them with temporal punishments Lastly that the Pope can in no sort dispense against the Law of Nature and of God whereby this obedience is commanded the subiects toward the Prince and for that cause can neither absolue and discharge the subiects from that obligation nor by iust excommunication censure them who doe not obey him when he forbiddeth them to giue lawfull obedience to the Prince Al which points are seuerally and distinctly concluded before with authorities testimonies and arguments which in my opinion cannot be answered which notwithstanding I will leaue to the iudgement of the Church For this is my minde and resolution to submit my selfe and all mine to the censure and iudgement of my most holy Mother CHAP. XXXI THose things which hitherto haue beene deliuered by vs of the soueraigne authoritie of Kings and Princes and of the dutie which is not to bee denied to them in all things which are not repugnant to Gods Commandements and to good manners they are confirmed by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers and the whole Church For although they had great opportunitâ—e and meanes to pull downe and to defect from their gouernment wicked Christian Princes by whom they had beene wronged with priuate and publike iniuries yet in no maner did they moue any question against them touching their authoritie and rule they denied them no parcell of humane obsequie and obedience Only they wisely freely and stoutly resisted their errours And so holding the multitude in their dutie towards God and their King they obserued both precepts of fearing God and honouring the King And in very deede this is the principall remedie to preserue mens mindes from slipping and reuoke them from errour and the most ready way and meane to reduce Kings and Princes being furiously caried headlong with a frenticke heresie from immanitie and fiercenesse to courtesie and mildnesse from errour to truth from heresie to the faith which course the ancient Fathers euer held in such like cases which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages and had not arrogated to themselues that same insolent and proud and hatefull domination ouer Kings and Emperours in temporall matters it had gone better then at this time it doth with the Christian Common-wealth and peraduenture those heresies wherewith wee are now sore pressed might haue beene strangled in the very cradle For euen the issue and the euent of businesse to this day doth sufficiently teach that the Popes doe little or nothing auaile while they hold this high slipperie and steepe headlong way but that they doe more times raise troubles schismes and warres by this meane in Christian Countries then propagate the faith of Christ or increase the profit and enlarge the liberty of the Church How vnprofitable and hurtfull to the Christian Common-wealth that assault was of Gregorie the VII vpon Henrie the IV. which Gregorie was the
these two powers whose opinion is set downe in this maner in a letter of S. Athanasius written to them which lead a solitarie life God hath committed a gouernment to you to vs he hath entrusted the matters which belong to the Church and as hee who with enuious eies maligneth your gouernment doth resist the diuine ordinance so take you heed least by drawing to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you prooue guilty of a great fault It is written Giue to Caesar those things which be Caesars and to God which are Gods Therefore neither is it lawfull for vs to exercise an earthly empire nor you being Emperour haue any power ouer our sacrifices and holy things From hence it is I meane from this distinction of powers that Innocentius and Panormitanus doe conclude that Lay-men are not bound to obey the Pope in those things which are not Spirituall or which concerne not the soule as they speake vnlesse they liue in those territories which bee subiect to the temporall Iurisdiction of the Pope And so ought that oath of the Profession of faith in the Bull of Pius the fourth to be restrained where it is said To the Bishop of Rome c. I promise and sweare true obedience when he is of the Laity that sweareth Bozius notwithstanding denieth this distinction of these powers and affirmeth full vndiscreetly that the temporall is contained vnder the Ecclesiastical and is directly subiect to it But hee perceaued that which was pressed with the euident confession of the holy Bishop Nicolas 1. who in a letter to Michael the Emperour teacheth that although in times past Heathen Emperours were called the chiefe Bishops yet when it came to the true King and Bishop neither did the Emperour draw to himselfe the interest of the Bishop nor she Bishop vsurped the name of the Emperour because the same Mediator of God and men the man Christ Iesus did so by their proper functions and seuerall priuiledges distinguish the duties of both the powers willing that his proper offices should be aduanced by a wholesome humilitie not by humane pride be againe drowned into hell that both Christian Emperours might stands in need of Bishops for eternall life and Bishops might vse imperiall laws for the course of temporall things onely c. Therefore when as he saw by the testimony of a chiefe Bishop that both the Powers were so disioined and seuered by their proper actes dignities and duties that neither the temporall power might without iniurie vsurpe the rights of the Spirituall power nor contrary this fine witted gentleman that he might vnwinde himselfe out of this brake he slips me into a blinde turning of an interpretation which was neuer heard of before wherein hee shewes himselfe very ridiculous nor so cunning in inuenting as vnaduised in deliuering the same * But we must marke saith he in these words of Nicclaus first that he doth not affirme that the Laye power is seuered from the Spirituall that an Ecclesiasticall power may not haue it but that a Secular man may not haue an Ecclesiasticall power therefore he saith that these powers are distinguished not all together as though one were not subordinate and subiect to the other but he affirmeth that they are distinguished by their Offices Actions and dignitie and with all when he had said neither did the Emperor draw to himselfe the Priueledges of the Bishopricke he said not againe the Bishop drew not to himselfe the priueledges of the Emperor He saith not the Priueledges or Rights as Nauarra in Cap. Nouit hath reported falsly nor as I thinke marking what he said but saith Nomen the name What should a man doe with such a myching bird-catcher of wordes who a man would thinke studied to make Pope Nicolas not a Pastor but an impostor and that he should seeme not to instruct but to mocke the Emperour for what I pray you was this conference betweene the Pope and the Emperour of wordes and not of things of the name and not of the right and power or did the Bishop write these letters that by the obscure doubtfulnesse or change of a word he might entrap the Emperour and not rather that hee might instruct him by a plaine discourse of truth It is a speech of a good conceipt that lawes are imposed by deedes and not by wordes and this letter is in a manner as an Ecclesiasticall law What then Nicolaus saith Neither did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour it is as much as if he had said he vsurped not the Right or the Rights of the Emperor which Nauarrus the most learned both Canonist and Deuine obseruing and others of all ages that were exercised in those knowledges haue taken Nomen and Iura for the the same in that Epistle which notwithstanding either of ignorance or malice are wrested quite from the meaning by this hunter of words this way and that way as please him This is not to know the lawes to vnderstand their wordes and not their force and meaning But this interpretation of Bozius is refelled by this that the Pope by these wordes as the Pagan Emperours were also called the chiefe Bishops that is named did not meane an empty and a bare name as though Emperours were onely named Bishops but the right and office because together with the names they retained all the rights and offices and dignities that were incident to each power which seeing it is most true and Bozius dare not deny it it followeth certainly that either no contrary comparison nor perfect difference between the Popes and Emperours of these and those times is in that place designed by Nicolaus or by the name of the Emperour that he vnderstands all the Imperiall right that as after Christ acknowledged and receiued the Emperours assumed not to themselues any more the rights of the Bishopricke so neither Bishops the rights of Emperours To conclude if the Pope had in this place signified that hee refused onely the name of the Emperour but retained the right and power might not the Emperour iustly reply that he stands not so much vpon the Name as vpon the Right what should he doe with the Name if another carie away his Right and Power hee had certainly said it neither would he haue put vp so foule an indignitie if hee had beleeued that any such thing might bee gathered out of Pope Nicolas his wordes But saith Bozius he said not their powers were wholy distinguished I confesse and that not without speciall care lest hee should giue to the Popes flatterers or any other busie Companions an easie occasion of Cauill and Exception For Bozius would interpret that word call together as farre as belonged to Execution therefore hee spake more and more plainly to wit that those powers are seuered and parted in their proper Actions Offices and Dignities that he might manifestly shew that by no meane they are ioyned together and that one is not subiect
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
Chapter of Bellarmine the which also in this place we will and that by good right fit to our purpose in this maner If it be true that the Pope hath temporall power indirectly to dispose of the temporalties of all Christians he hath the same either by the law of God or of man If by the law of God That should appeare by the Scriptures or surely by the tradition of the Apostles Out of the Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keies of the kingdome of earth there is no mention as for tradition of Apostles the aduersaries produce none neither Canonists nor Diuines If by mans law let them bring foorth their law that we may be all of the same opinion with them But if they shall say that they neede neither expresse word of God nor tradition of Apostles for the confirmation of this power since it appertameth to the Pope onely indirectly and by a kinde of consequence as a certaine and inseparable accession and appurtenance of that Spirituall power wherewith the supreme Pastor of soules is indued ouer all the sheepe of the Christian flocke We also will require of them some testimonie of this accession and coniunction either out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles Wee doe require I say that they teach vs either out of Scriptures or tradition of Apostles that this is an accession and consequence necessarie and inseparable to that Spirituall power which the Pope hath and that it belongeth to the Popes office in some manner that is indirectly as they speake to dispose of all temporall matters of Christians seeing it is verie vnlikely if that belongs to his office that so great an extent of power and which there is nothing higher amongst men hath beene omitted in so deepe silence in the Church so many ages both by Christ our Sauiour and also by the Apostles and their successors for if each power may be seuered from other the Spirituall from the Temporall and contiarily there will be some place for that opinion which determines that that which is not permitted to be done directly cannot be done indirectly for so haue wise men defined as oft as any thing is forbidden to bee done directly that the same can neither bee done indirectly or by consequence vnlesse that which is forbidden doe follow necessarily to another thing lawfully permitted so as the thing permitted cannot proceed without the thing prohibited and vnlesse as I may speake with the Ciuilians The cause of both be so commixed that it cannot be seuered Whereby it is concluded that hee who is alone cannot alien any thing cannot yeeld to a sute moued vpon the same thing for that by this meane he should obliquely indirectly alien Therefore if the Pope as he is Pope hath no temporall power directly ouer Christians which they do grant it seemeth to be proued by the former sentence of the law that he can haue none not so much as indirectly Therefore that they may perswade men to their opinion they ought to bring testimonie out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles or at least make plaine that this temporall power whereof they speake is so ioined with the Spirituall that by no meanes it can be pulled and diuided from it I meane that the Spirituall cannot consist without it Which because they could not performe they haue followed nothing but vncertaine opinions and such reasons as seeme not sufficiently to conclude that which they assume which we will examine in their order and place CHAP. VI. THe former opinion of the temporall power which they say the Pope hath indirectly is vehemently shaken euen by this that neither practise nor example nor any mention of such a papall power hath been heard of the space of a thousand yeeres in the Church when as in those times many christian Princes did abuse their Kingdomes and Gouernments impiously cruelly peruersly and to the great preiudice and mischeefe of the Church whereof one of the two must needs follow that either the Bishops of those times were wanting to their duties or that the Bishops of the times ensuing did and at this day doe gouerne the Church with greater power and command because these later haue openly challenged to themselues this temporall power and haue endeuoured to pull the same in and at their pleasure ouer Kings and Princes but the former haue not at any time acknowledged that any such right belongeth to them I am not ignorant what answers haue been made by diuers to excuse those first Pastors but I know that they are such that if they be diligently examined they can not be allowed by the opinion of any indifferent iudge There came foorth a booke printed at Rome the yeere of our Lord 1588. published vnder a fained name of Franciscus Romulus with this title An answer to certaine heads of an Apologie which is falsly intituled Catholike for the succession of Henry of Nauar into the Kingdome of France The author of which booke whome Bellarmine knowes and loues very well labours to take away this most important obiection by the change of the state of the Church and by the diuerse reason and condition of times and persons which oftentime brings in diuersity of law For thus he saith And now where as the aduersarie obiecteth in the fourth place touching the custome of our ancestors who endured many hereticall Princes as Constantius and Valens Arius Anastasius an Eutychian Heraclius a Monothelite and others besides it makes nothing to the matter For the Church ought not rashly and inconsideratly to abuse her power Moreouer it falleth out not very seldome that the power of certaine Kings is so great being also ioined with wickednesse and cruelty that the Ecclesiasticall censure neither profiteth any thing to restraine them and doth very much hurt to Catholike people vpon whom these Princes prouoked do rage the more For I pray you what had it auailed the Church in times past if she had assaied to excōmunicate to depose either the Ostrogoth Kings in Italy or the Visegothes in Spain or the Vandales in Afrik although she might haue done it very iustly and the very same ought to be vnderstood of Constantius and Valens and others aboue named and indeed then the times were such as that the Bishops ought rather to haue been ready to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes But when the Church perceiued that now some place was opened to her power either with the spirituall profit of the Princes themselues or at least without the mischeefe and hurt of the people she was not wanting to her selfe as the examples alleadged before doe prooue For thus the Church iudged that Leo Isaurus was to be depriued of halfe his Empire and Henry the fourth of the whole and Childerike of the Kingdome of France and indeed afterward both Leo wanted part of his Empire and Henry the whole and Childerike his kingdome of France
a priuate man Before day saith Ambrose as soone as I set my foote out of dores the Palace was beset round about with souldiers and it is reported that word was sent the Emperour by the souldiers that if he would come forth he should haue leaue but yet that they would be ready to attend him if they saw that he did agree with the Catholikes otherwise that they would passe ouer to the companie that Ambrose gathered Not one of the Arrians durst come forth because neither any of them were Citizens a few of them of the Princes house and many of them Gothes who as before they had a Carte for their house so now a Carte is their Church And after in the same Epistle speaking of himselfe I am called a Tyrant quoth he yea and more then a Tyrant for when his friends intreated the Emperour that hee would come out to the Church and told him withall that they did it at the request of his souldiers he answered If Ambrose command you I will deliuer my selfe to be bound What say the Aduersaries to this is not this one place enough to stop all mens mouthes I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italie with a great armie gathered out of the parts of Britaine and France to prouide as hee pretended that Catholike religion should receiue no further harme and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himselfe which notwithstanding was not his onely end but that which in our age hath beene practised by diuers with this colour of Pietie he couered his burning desire of raigning for he was determined hauing now killed Gratianus at Lyons to inuade Ualentinianus his Empire Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his comming fled out of Italie into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperour of the East A matter worth the noting An Heretike being chased by a Catholike flies for succour to a Catholike of whom he is both rebuked for his heresie and for the reuerence of his Maiestie courteously receiued and restored to his kingdome And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawfull Prince Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire nor Restorer of the Church but a Rebell and a Tyrant Seeing these things stand thus I would now wish the Aduersaries that they would forbeare to abuse vs with their deuise and inuention or at least to tell vs whence they haue it Haue they read any where in any good Author that the Christians did then so much distrust their strength and power as that they durst not so much as attempt that which if they had resolutely vndertaken they had easily effected or that they made a proffer at the least but when they had tryed the fortune of the warre and all other humane meanes at last yeelded and lay downe vnder these wicked Princes Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospell that they did not vnderstand what power the Bishop or People had ouer a peruerse and hereticall Prince What did the heate of religion and the zeale of the house of God faile them Let the Aduersaries vnfould the memorie of all Records and turne ouer and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiasticall and prophane beleeue me they shall neuer finde that the Church in those times wherein it was much more powerfull than now it is did euer endeuour any thing to the mischiefe of Princes although they were wicked or euer went about to disanull their gouernment as hath beene plainly and plentifully prooued by vs in our bookes De Regno But cleane contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers of the power of secular Princes it is most certaine that all in that age did thinke that no temporall power did in any manner nor for any cause appertaine either to the Bishop of Rome or cheefe Bishop or to the whole Church but that for temporall punishments they were to be left to the iudgement of God alone And this as it seemeth was the cause why those fathers did so seldome and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes because indeed in those times there was no controuersie about it but one iudgement of all men which euen from the preaching of the Apostles they receiued in a manner by hand that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his iudge although in spirituall matters he be subiect to the iudgement of the Church For the first witnesse in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperours They thinke saith he that it is God alone in whose only power they are from whom they are second after whom they are first before all Gods and aboue all men and in another place we honor the Emperor so as is both lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second from God and haue obtained what so euer he is from God lesse then God only this he desires himselfe so is he greater then all men while he is lesse then the true God alone Thus much he professeth not in his particular but in the generall person of all christians as the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the whole Church Neither let any thinke to elude this argument because the Emperors at that time were without the Church and therefore not subiect to the Church For the law of Christ depriues no man of his right which the aduersaries themselues confesse and therefore as we shewed before Kings and Emperors by comming to the Church loose nothing of their temporall interest In the second place shall S. Ambrose come foorth who writing of Dauid that heaped murder vpon adultery He was a King saith he he was bound by no lawes because Kings are free from the bands of offences For they are not called to punishment by any lawes being exempte by the power of their gouernment Thirdly B. Gregorie of Towers who speakes to Childerike King of France vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously in these words If any of vâ—â—â— King would transgresse the limits of iustice he may be punished by you but if you shall exceed who shall punish you for we speake to you but if you will you heare and if you will not who shall condemne you but he who hath pronounced that he is iustice it selfe Fourthly S. Gregorie the Great who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers who being Pope himselfe confessed that he was the seruant and subiect of the Emperor and with great ciuility and humility acknowledged that all power was giuen the Emperor from heauen ouer all men as we shewed a little before Fiftly the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen Only Kings saith he as being set ouer the lawes are reserued to the examination of God they are not restrained by the lawes of man From
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
hurt to the people it must needs be that either they haue not read this author or that they haue no care of their credite who ensnare themselues in so manifest an vntruth If they knew not this before let them learne now at the last out of this graue writer that that is false which they ignorantly giue out for true and I wish them to consider and iudge vnpartially if it had not been better for that Gregorie the Pope should haue suffered the wils desperate maners of Henry like to Constantius Iulianus Valens and other Emperours who vexed the Church and with teares and praiers to intret the goodnes of God either for his recouerie or destruction rather than by one insolent and strange act and that very vnnecessary to stir vp so many schismes and murders so many sackings of people and Cities so many disgraces shamefull against the Sea Apostolike so many warres against the Popes and other furious Tragedies with the destruction of all the people and to nourish and continue these being stirred vp to the exceeding mischiefe of the Church It may be that Gregorie did it of a good minde let God iudge of the intention but it cannot be that he did it rightly wisely and according to dutie nor but that he erred very wide according to the manner and counsell of a man when he assumed that to himselfe which in truth was not his that is to say the office of deposing an Emperour and the power to substitute an other in his place as though the fee of that humane kingdome had belonged to him which that verse doth sufficiently declare which is reported by Otto and aboue is transcribed by vs. Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho Now it is certaine that it is not alwaies well done and according to the will of God which is done euen of men otherwise very good thorough heat of holinesse and a good zeale Moses while he killed the Egiptian with a zeale to defend the Hebrew sinned Oza thorough a zeale to vphold the Arke of the Lord swarue and lying a tone side touched it and died Peter of a zeale to defend his Lord and Master cut of Malchus his eare and was rebuked for it Hence S. Ambrose to Theodosius I know that you are godly mercifull gentle and peaceable louing faith and the feare of the Lord but for the most part something or other deceiues vs some haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge Inconsiderate zeale often inciteth to mischiefe Therfore in my opinion there was a great fault in Pope Gregory about this businesse because he did not obserue that it belonged to the dutie of the cheefe Pastor rather to let passe one mans wickednesse vnpunished then thorough a desire to correct the same to wrap the innocent and harmelesse multitude in danger And therefore he ought not to haue excommunicate that Emperor whose wickednesse so great a number of men had conspired to maintaine that they could not be separated without a schisme a renting nay not without the dissolution of the whole Church The great light of the Church S. Austine aduised the same many ages agoe both holily and wisely and prooued the same clearely out of the writings of the Apostle Paul whose iudgement was so well liked by the Church that she recorded it amongst the Canons and therefore worthy that I should transcribe it into this place and to be written not with â—ike but with gold nor in paper that will quickly weare but in â—int and adamant or if there be any thing more durable and lasting then they The chastisement saith he of many can not be wholâ—ome but wâ—en he is chasti 〈◊〉 that hath not a multitude to partake with him But when the same aâ— case hath possessed many there is 〈…〉 but to greâ—â—e and mourne that 〈…〉 from their destruction 〈…〉 reâ—caled to holy Ezechâ—eâ—â— Least when 〈…〉 they root vp the wheat also nor 〈…〉 the Lords â—ornâ— but they themselues 〈…〉 amongst the 〈…〉 And-therefore the same 〈…〉 out many who were corrupted 〈…〉 writing to the same 〈◊〉 in his â—econd 〈◊〉 did not againe prescribe that they should not eat with such for they were many Neither could it be did of them If any brother be called a fornicator 〈…〉 any such like that they 〈…〉 much as eat with such but he saith least when I come againe to you God doe humble me and I lament many 〈…〉 haue sinned before and haue not repented for the 〈…〉 and fornication which they haue committed By this mourning of his threatning that they are rather to begun 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 from God then by that castigation that 〈◊〉 may forbeare their company And a litle after indeed if the contagâ—on of sinning haue taken hould of a multitude the 〈◊〉 mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary for 〈…〉 that â—â— of Excommunication are both 〈…〉 they prooue 〈…〉 more trouble the weake ones that be good thâ—◠〈◊〉 the stâ—ut ones that be wicked Seeing these things stand thus there is none as I suppose by comparing S. Austines rule which also is the rule of the Church with the practise of Gregorie against Henrie but will euidently see that the Pope erred greatly that would excommunicate an Emperour whose party a huge multitude both of the Cleargie and laity did follow with manifest danger of a grecuous schisme and much more when as by an odious sentence he went about to depriue him of the right of his Empire to which the Bishop himselfe had no title in the world that it is no maruell if as Sigâ—â—ert wâ—â—toth the said Gregorie a little before his death repented him of all those things which he had done against the Emperor I am willing to set downe the place of Sigâ—bert because it contemeth not his owne opinion which is suspected to the aduersaires because he followed Henricus his partie but the historicall narration of an other author Pope 〈◊〉 saith he who is also called Gregorie the 7. dieth in banishment at Salernum Oâ— him I find it thus 〈◊〉 We would haue you know who are carefull of the Ecclesiasticall charge that the Lord Apostolike 〈◊〉 who also is Gregorie lying now at the point of death caâ—ed to him one of twelue Cardinalls whom he cheefly loued aboue the rest and confessed to God and S. Peter and to the whole Church that he had greatly offended in the pastroall charge which was committed to him to gouerne and by the instigation of the Deuill had raised anger and hatred against mankind Then at last he sent the foresaid confessor to the Emperor and to the whole Church to wish all grace and indulgence to them because he saw his life was at an end and instantly he put on his 〈◊〉 vesture and remitted and loosed the bands of all his curses to the Emperor and to all christian people the liuing and the dead the spiritually and the laâ—â—y and willed his owne 〈◊〉 to depart
premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules and none 〈…〉 of has iudgement as hath beene said And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 thâ—â— kingdomes which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christiaâ— Kings and Princes should stand 〈…〉 that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all tempâ—â—alitiâ—s of Christians who shall meaâ—â— tâ—at 〈…〉 owne pleasure and iudgement that 〈…〉 for him if he be displeased then to 〈…〉 his indirect power so oâ—t 〈…〉 priuate 〈◊〉 oâ— the ambiâ—◠〈…〉 forward or euen 〈…〉 and contemned 〈…〉 Where of â—â—â—face 〈…〉 haue giuen 〈…〉 all of iâ—any they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the poâ—tifiâ—◠〈…〉 and 〈…〉 one after another as 〈…〉 I omit this reason taken 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—ought it 〈…〉 for that 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 kingdoms but an execution 〈…〉 to thâ—m by the Pope â—â—t iâ— it strange against the 〈…〉 and all the abâ—ttoâ— of the indirect power 〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction is 〈…〉 by the law of God oâ— of Man and also he 〈…〉 oâ— holdeth any thâ—ng iâ— he hold by neiâ—â—â—â— of these holdeth wrongfullâ— as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Dâ—â—atists Therefore it cannot be that the Pope should iustly exercise any temporall iurisdiction ouer secular Kings and Princes vnlesse it be certaine that the same is giuen him either by the law of God or of Man But neither in diuine nor humane lawes is any such place found which confers any such power vpon him whereas on the contrary part the domination and authority of kings is openly commended and allowed by many testimonies of sacred Scriptures as when it is said By mee Kings raigne All power is giuen to you The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them The heart of the King is in the hand of God I will giue them a King in mine anger My sonne feare the Lord and the King Feare God honour the King and euery where the like speeches Lastly seeing this temporall power and Iurisdiction of the Pope whereof we speake is not found to be comprised neither in the expresse word of God in the Scriptures nor by the tradition of the Apostles receiued as it were by hand nor practised by vse and custome in the Church for these thousand yeeres and more or exercised by any Pope nor allowed and commended nay not so much as mentioned by the ancient Fathers in the Church I pray you what necessitie of faith should force vs to admit it or with what authoritie can they perswade the same vnto vs Our opinion say they is prooued by reasons and examples how glad say I would I be that that were true But wee ought chiefely to know this that onely those reasons are fit to prooue this opinion of theirs whereof euident proofes and demonstrations are made which none of them hath hitherto brought nor as I thinke could bring For as touching reasons onely probable and likely whereof Dialectike syllogismes doe consist their force is not such as can conclude and giue away from Kings and Princes their soueraigne authoritie from them seeing that euen in daily brables about trifling matters nothing can be concluded vnlesse the Cause of the Suiter bee prooued by manifest and euident proofes and witnesses and therefore the Actor not proouing he that is conuented although himselfe performe nothing shall carie the businesse But the helpe is very weake and feeble in Examples because they onely shew what was done not what ought to be done those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimonie of the Scriptures which seeing they are thus let vs now see with what reasons the Aduersaries continue their opinion CHAP. XIII THere is not one amongst them all who are of the Popes partie as I said before who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharpely or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉 than the worthy Diuine Bellarmine whom I mention for honors sake who although he gaue as much to the Popes authoritie in temporalities as honestly hee might and more then he ought yet could hee not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist Who affirmed that hee had supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the whole earth and all Peoples Countries and Nations committed vnto him not by humane but by diuine ordinance And therefore he was very neere by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to haue abolished all the writings of that Doctor which do oppugne heresie with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report to me Which matter comforts me if peraduenture that which I would not any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholikes to read my bookes Let him doe what he will but he shall neuer bring to passe that I euer forsake the Catholike Apostolike and Romish faith wherein I haue liued from a Child to this great age or dye in another profession of faith then which was prescribed by Pius the 4. We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are fiue in number leauing others especially Bozius his fancies which are vnworthy that a man of learning should trouble himselfe to refute The first reason is which Bellarmine propounds in these wordes The ciuill power is subiect to the spirituall power when each of them is a part of the Christian common-wealth therefore a spirituall Prince may command ouer temporall Princes and dispose of temporall matters in order to a spirituall good for euery superiour may command his inferiour And least any peraduenture elude this reason by denying the Proposition with the next he labours to strengthen the same by three reasons or Media as they call them Now that ciuill power not onely as Christian but also as Ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiastike as it is such first it is prâ—â—ued by the ends of them both for the temporall end is subordinate to the spirituall end as it appeares because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore ought to be referred to the felicitie eternall Now it is plaine out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate as the ends are subordinate Secondly Kings and Bishops Cleargie and Laitie doe not make two common wealthes but one that is one Church for we are all one bodie Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth 12. But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one of another but it is no right assertion that spirituall things depend on temporall therefore temporall things depend of spirituall and are subiect to them Thirdly if a temporall administration hinder a spirituall good in all mens iudgement the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment yea euen with the losse of a temporall good therefore it is a signe
it is not lawfull for them to vse another mans authority and is fitting for the one onely to meddle in matter of armes and for the other with matter of iustice In the same manner two soueraigne Magistrates of the Christian Common-wealth the King and the Pope doe receiue from the common King and Lord of all the great God of Heauen and Earth a diuers power each perfect in his kind and gouerne the people by different iurisdictions and offices And these surely so long as they agree together in concord of mindes doe naturally assist one another to the maintenance and conseruation of each power and authority so as both the Ecclesiastike power doth with the Heauenly and Spiritual sword strike such as be seditious and rebellious subiects to their secular Prince and in requitall the power Temporall and Politike doth with an armed hand pursue Schismatikes and others falling from the faith or otherwise carying themselues stubbornly toward their holy Mother the Church and doth sharply chastice them with temporall punishments and ciuil corrections and Mulctes But when they are rent into contrary factions and oppose themselues one against the other the whole Christian Common-wealth either wholly fales to ground or at least is most greeuously wounded because there is none but God alone who can lawfully deuide that cause and redresse the wrong offred of either side CHAP. XVIII BEing desirous to passe on to other matters I was a little staide by a doubt which did arise touching the sense of the late argument of the second reason which was conceiued by the author in these words Also euery Common-weale because shee ought to be perfect and sufficient in hirselfe may command another Common-wealth not subiect to hir and inforce hir to change her gouernment yea also to depose hir Prince and to ordaine another being shee cannot otherwise defend hirselfe from hir iniuries For to confesse the truth when I first read these words in him I paused awhile that I might throughly vnderstand the meaning of these words and what the moment and waight of this argument might be For he seemed not plainly and expresly to approue it because he did lay open to vs certaine meanes of forceing a Neighbour Common-wealth and deposing the Prince thereof And when I had a long time skanned and examined the same I resolued that either it was a riddle or that his words doe admit this sence and interpretation Euery Common-weale may denounce and wage a iust war against another Common-wealth which beares both hatred and armes against her when as she cannot otherwise deliuer hirselfe from hir iniurie and if shee be the stronger may by force and armes force hir to conditions of peace and if she suppose that by that Caution shee hath not yet prouided sufficiently for hir security because peraduenture shee hath to do with a people that is by nature false and treacherous may reduce the whole Country into her power and iurisdiction and giue her lawes and orders remooue hir Prince take away hir authority and at hir pleasure alter the whole administration of the Common-wealth into another form But if this be the true sense of these words as I suppose it is that argument surely was to small purpose brought of Bellarmine for that is not gathered from hence which he concludes forsooth Much more may the Spirituall Common-wealth command the Temporall Common-wealth being subiect vnto hir and force hir to change hir administration and to depose Princes and ordaine others c. Because in this case there be not two Common-wealthes but onely one Christian resting on two powers whereof neither is subiect to other as we haue aboue sufficiently demonstrated as also for that if we grant that they are two Common-wealthes distinct the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall and the Temporall he must of force confesse that in the one all Bishops and Clerikes only are comprised in the other all secular Princes and Laikes or that this is compounded of onely Ecclesiastikes that of onely Laikes For although the Laikes and Clerikes together doe constitute one Church and one christian Common-weale yet they doe not make together one Ecclesiastike and spiritual Common-wealth as it is distinguished from the temporall nor one temporall and secular Common-wealth but according to the diuision and separation aboue named the Laikes make the temporall and the Ecclesiastikes the spirituall in the case wherein the temporall is distinguished from the spirituall after this manner But now seeing the Ecclesiastike common-wealth containes onely Clerikes whose weapons ought to be none other but Praiers and Teares how can it be that she being weake and vnarmed can compell but by Miracle a temporall Common-weale armed to change the manner of her administration Therefore there is nothing more fond then this comparison and consequution of Bellarmine since in reasoning he proceeds from Common-wealthes well prouided for exercise and furniture of armes to Common-wealthes the one whereof is vtterly disfurnished of armes For as oft as one State either repelleth the iniuries which another would offer or reuengeth them being offered she fighteth with those armes which are allowed her and which by law of armes she may vse that is to say Corporall and Visible by force whereof she ouerturnes the bodies of her enemies inuades their holds battereth townes and ouerthrowes the whole state of the enemie Common-wealth But the spirituall Common-weale which he calles is quite destitute of this kind of armes and because it is composed of Clerikes onely it is lawfull for her to fight with spirituall armes onely which are Prayers and Teares for such are the defences of Priests in no other manner neither ought they neither can they resist For all of them are commanded in the person of Peter to put vp the Materiall sword How then can the spirituall Common-wealth constraine the temporall Common-wealth which contemnes the spirituall thunder-boltes that she should change the manner and forme of her Administration or depose her Prince and ordaine another Now if any peraduenture doe propound that the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth should bee assisted in the execution of so great a matter by the humane forces of secular men for Princes and all other Christians ought to be Nurses and defenders of the Church he will be answered out of hand that in that case the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth doth not constraine the temporall common-weale but is onely the Cause wherefore an other State temporall by whose helpe that spirituall one is defended and protected doth reuenge the wrong done vnto the Church In no other manner than if the whole Common-wealth should reuenge an iniurie or a slaughter receiued in the person of one Citizen Euen as it is recorded that the rest of the Tribes of Israell did wage a bitter and a grieuous warre against the Beniamites for rauishing the wife of one Leuite So the Graecians in times past reuenged Menclaus his iniurie with the ruine of Troy And the Romanes punished with a sharpe warre Teuca Queene of the
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
beginning that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subiection is giuen As also because by the vow of religiont he obligation is taken only to God and the Church whereof the Pope is the Vicar or deputed head and therefore if the Pope to whom the free procuration and dispensation of all the buisnesses of the Church is permitted shall as it were in a fashion of renewing a bond transfuse and change the obligation taken to the Church into another Obligation and also doe interpret and consture that by the promise of a great good or performance there is satisfaction made to the Lord God who is the principall creditor in that businesse peraduenture it will not be very absurd to say that there may by chance prooue a liberation and freedome from the knot of the former vow and promise vnlesse some may thinke that it cannot be for this cause because the transgression of a lawfull vow is simply and of his owne nature sinfull and that which is sinfull may not be allowed to be donne to obtaine any good although it be very great But the solution of that obiection is very easie But the matter 〈◊〉 farre otherwise in the case of an Oath which men in their bargaines and couenants are wont to take to confirme and ratifie another Obligation thereby Seeing such a manner of oath is a certaine increase of that obligation to which it is added for securitie in such manner as suertiesâ—ip or assurance of any Pledge or Moregage is vsually taken And therefore although the oath be said to be made to God yet in this case the obligation doth accrew not to God principally but to the person to whom the oath is sworne quia per iuramentum â—urans non intendebat placere Deo sed satisfacere proximo Whereby it commeth to passe that he to whom the Oath is taken hath much more interest by that Oath and obtaineth much more power either to retaine it or to remit it then is granted to the Church in a vow for the Church or Pope euen as they confesse who submit all things to his pleasure cannot without great and iust cause dispense with the solemne vow of Religion But he to whom an other hath by oath bound his faith in the matter of giuing or doing may both alone and without cause of his meere pleasure wholy free the Promiser from the Religion of his Oath and 〈◊〉 it to him whatsoeuer it bee of himselfe so as his onely leaue and good will obtained neither is there any more need of the Popes absolution neither if he shall not performe that which he promised may he be reputed guiltie of periurie before God Therefore it is in a man in this Case who can at his pleasure either retaine one that is bound or dismisse him free which because they are so by the consent of all men how can it be that the Pope may take from the Creditor against his will an Obligation taken to him by the best law that may be I meane by the Law naturall diuine and humane by an oath euery manner of way lawfull which was added to the lawfull contract seing in this kind as in the former there is no place left to Construction by which it may be presumed that he is satisfied to whom principally the oath was made viz. No Creditor speaking a word against nor shewing the contrarie seeing presumption yeeldeth to the truth But let it be that he may vpon cause take it away and free the Promiser from the bond of his Oath because I wil not striue longer with the Canonists about this matter let him then take it away and what then force after thinke you will seeme in this our businesse you will say that the people will be free from the commandement and subiection of the Prince a soone as they are loosed from the bond of their oath Thinke you so indeed what doe you not see that this Oath is but an Accessarie onely to ratifie and assure the Obligation whereby loyaltie and obedience was promised to the Prince doe you not know that Accessaries are taken away and discharged with auoiding of the principall Obligation for although the principall being cancelled the Accessarie falles yet by the taking away of the Accessaries the Principall is not destroied Therefore the Obligation remaineth yet to which this Oath was added which because it consists vpon naturall and diuine Law doth no lesse straitly hold the mindes and consciences of men before God then if it were supported with an Oath quia Dominus inter iur amentum loquelam nostram nullam vult esse distantiam as much as concernes keeping faith of the promise Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more by reason of the contempt of God and notwithstanding that in the externall Court Periurie is more grieuously punished by reason of the solemnitie of the promise then the faith neglected of a mans single promise and bare word as we say But if the Pope would also cancell this Obligation de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine and deliuer and discharge the Subiects from the Oath of the King and enioyne them that they should not dare to obey his requests commandements and lawes vnder paine of Excommunication Shall not the expresse commandement of God seeme to contraueene this warrant of the Pope I meane the commandement of the honoring of Kings with all obedience Is it not lawfull in such a businesse and in a cause the greatest almost that may be to doe that which the Popes interpreters are accustomed to doe in Controuersies of lesse moment And that is to make diligent and carefull inquisition into this same plenitudinem Potestatis whether it extend it selfe so farre as that by it should expresly be forbidden which God doth expresly command or that which God directly forbids to be done the same may lawfully be commanded by it God commandes mee by Salomon to feare the King by his Apostles to honour the King to be subiect and obedient to him This surely is a commandement both of naturall and diuine Law that the inferiour should obey the superiour as long as hee forbiddeth not who is superiour to them both in the same kind of power And he in this businesse betweene the people and the Prince when the question is about temporall authoritie and subiection is God alone then whom alone the King is lesse in temporall matters as in spirituall the Pope Seeing then all men doe ingenuously confesse that this fulnesse of the Apostolike power is not so great that the Pope may in any sort dispense in those things which are bidden or forbidden by the expresse word of God which Axiome or Proposition Bellarmine chiefely resteth on while he would shew That the Pope cannot subiect himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Popes power ouer all men is saith he by the law of God but the Pope cannot dispence in the law of God We
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
and vncleannesse hee obeied the will of the Bishop and that hee might obtaine of him the benefite of absolution hee performed at the admonition of the Bishop a temporall office which seemed to bee profitable for the common wealth Vpon which occasion the Author of the history saith For this so great vertue both the Emperour and the Bishop were famous For I admire both the liberty of the one the obedience of the other Againe the burning of the zeale of the one and the purity of faith in the other Ambrose then constrained Theodosius iust as our Confessaries at this day doe constraine their Poenitents to whome they often deny absolution of their crime where they seriously promise that they will performe that office or burden which in place of Poenitence they lay on them when as yet they haue no temporall iurisdiction ouer them He forced him likewise euen as any of vs vseth to force his neighbour or fellow Burgesse when we deny that to him which hee desireth to be done or giuen him by vs vnlesse hee first do that which wee desire for our friends sake or our own To be short it is a common thing that a man is constrained or enforced by reason by loue by griefe by anger and by other affections and passions of the mind without any authority of temporall and spiritual iurisdiction These things standing thus it is worth the obseruation in this example that the Ecclesiasticall power doth often with feare of spirituall punishment enforce men to performe temporall duties as in this place Ambrose did the Emperour and of the contrary that the ciuill power doth many times by feare of temporall paines driue others to performe spirituall offices as when a Prince compelleth heretickes or schismaticks to returne to the Church for feare of bodily punishment or losse of goods and yet neither can the one impose temporall punishment nor the other spirituall but by accident as they say The fourth followeth The fourth saith he is of Gregory the first in the Priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus and is to bee seene in the end of the Epistles If saith he any King Prelate Bishop or person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicke authority and of our commaundement of what dignity or honour soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour If Bishop Gregory should liue at this day and vnderstand that these words of his are taken in that sense as though he had authority to depriue Kings of their honour and dignity hee would surely cry out that it is a calumnious and a wrested interpretation and that he neuer so much as dreamed of any such matter and indeed those things which in other places are left written by him doe vtterly discredite this exposition These then are the words not of a commaunder but of a curser whereby he chargeth and adiureth all kind of men that they doe not violate the priuiledge granted by him which if they shall doe that God will be the reuenger to depriue them of honour which kind of admonition and imprecation is at this day wont to bee added to the ends of the Popes Bulles and constitutions in this manner Therefore it may be lawfull for no man to in fringe this page c. or of presumption to contrary the same but of any shall presume to attempt it let him incurre the indidgnation of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul or that which is the same let him know that he shall incurre CHAP. XL. BY that which hath beene said the Reader will easily see that it is true which before I set down that there cannot bee found either in the holy Scriptures or writings of holy Fathers any printe or example of the temporall authority of the Pope and therefore that they do not well nay that they offend very greeuously who labour to strengthen an opinion most false in it selfe by arguments and examples so remote and impertinent By these meanes they deceiue the vnlearned and are derided by the learned I haue already proued very plainely that there is no force in the former examples to proue that which the aduersaries affirme And for the examples following I take lesse thought to answer For although some of them doe fit the purpose of the aduersaris and shew that Popes did sometimes vse temporall authority in the last ages of the Church notwithstanding because they containe nothing but the singular actions of Popes who no man denieth but that they were men and might commit faults and slippes after the manner of men in so much as it is now celebrated by a common Prouerbe which we remembred before out of Sotus Factum Pontificum non facit fidei articulum that is The act of the Popes doth not make an article of faith therefore touching their acts wherin they haue endeauoured to exercise such an authority the question and disputation is behinde touching the lawfulnesse thereof whether they were done lawfully yea or no Neither ought that to moue vs at all the writers of the stories who haue in their writings recorded the acts of the Popes haue added no note or touch of reprehension but rather haue allowed and commended them For I see that there were many reasons for that First because all the writers of that time were either Monkes or at the least Clergy men who tooke most care to increase and amplifie the dignity of the Popes and therefore they were very wary and heedfull not to reprehend or checke any actions of the Popes and to accuse them of iniustice Secondly for that in those times so great was the opinion of the Pope that the multitude receiued and embraced in estimation all his actions as if they had beene done by God himselfe in which respect Iohn Gerson said not without reason That the common people doth imagine the Pope as a God who hath all authority in heauen and in earth My selfe haue seene aboue fifty yeares agone in Scotland when as that Kingdome did as yet stand sound in faith and religion that the name of the Pope of Rome for so they spake Scotishly the Pape of Rome was had in such reuerence with the multitude that whatsoeuer was told them to haue beene said or done by him was esteemed of all men as an oracle and as a thing done by God himselfe Lastly for that a present danger did hang ouer their heades which danger to this day bindeth the hands and mussles the mouthes of many lest if they should write any thing which was harsh and vnpleasing to the Pope or should taxe and find fault with his actions as well the writer as his writing should forth with be stricken with the Popes curses which cannot seeme strange to those who doe know that the anger and arrogancie of Pope Sixtus V. did burne so farre that as I touched before hee had determined to destroy and quite extinguish the trim and goodly disputations of Bellarmine because hee
GVIL BARCLAII J. C. OF THE AVTHORITIE OF THE POPE WHETHER AND HOW FARRE FORTH he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber posthumus AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD for VVilliam Aspley 1611. TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD CLEMENT the 8. Pope W. Barclay wisheth health IF Rome from Peter to this day had seene such Bishops as your Holinesse is most High Father and Prelate of Christians there had been no place for this Question at this time Your Moderation and Gentlenesse answerable to your Name either had not opened any gap to this Busines or had barred the same by some graue Prouision that it should not be opened I haue here discussed the Question touching the Temporall authoritie of your See ouer Kings and Princes which hauing been canuassed with so great Troubles and so much Blood hath as oft afflicted the Church as the Princes themselues I haue also dedicated the same to you lest I might seeme either to haue shunned your Iudgement or to haue managed rather the Cause of the Kings then of the Church If I haue not pleased euery mans taste I desire them to consider That no Medicine brings Health without bitternesse It is peraduenture an odious argument to such as be scrupulous or malitious to peruert my sense and meaning which not withstanding most Holy Father I haue vndertaken partly out of the loue of the Truth partly also for that I haue been of opinion that this Authoritic is the fountaine of all those tempests wherewith Heresie tosseth your ship at this day Pope Iulius the 2. being alienated with a sudden vnkindnes did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France but also depriued Iohn King of Nauarre of his kingdome because hee assisted the French And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France but the Nauarrois hearing the Spaniard of one side and being excluded on the other side by the Mountaines of Pyrene from the helpe of France was not able to make his part good against the furie of Rome and the ambition of Spaine Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdome he retired into France where he had a large and ancient Patrimonie In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled and the Heires of Iohn King of Nauarre inflamed with their priuate hatred did very soone passe to that side which bandied against the See of Rome Therefore came Heresie first to be seattered thorow France by the partialitie of those Princes which through the fiaming fire and after through warres hath continued to this day As for Henrie the 8 King of England who doubteth that he departed not so much from the Religion as from the Pope out of his Hatred against the very same Authoritie Clemens the 7. had denounced Henrie depriued of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms and he againe conceiued an anger which peraduenture was not vniust of his part but blinde and intemperate He opened England to Heretikes by the occasion of this schisme who afterwards growing strong vnder Edward the 6 destroyed the ancient Religion Againe Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England hauing held out vnder Iames the 5 at length was attainted in the beginning of Maries raigne and presently after infected when the poison had gathered further strength So what Heresie or Heretiques soeuer are in France and Britannie at this day which is their onlie strong hold was conceiued and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporall Authothoritie as a pestilent egge Behold most holy Father how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command which like Scianus his Horse hath euer cast his Masters to the ground Therefore haue I vndertaken this worke out of my affection to Religion and Truth not to the Princes and of a sincere and humble minde haue presented the same to you the Chiefe Pastour to whom it appertaineth to iudge of leper and leper If there be any thing in these writings which you shall thinke good and profitable I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweete remembrance of so great a Witnesse But if allowing my affection yet you shall not allow my Iudgement it shall be to posteritie an argument of your Moderation that vnder you the simple libertie of Disputation hath not been preiudiciall to any Let this be an argument of your Moderation but neuer of my Obstinacie For whatsoeuer is in this businesse I leaue it to your Censure that in this booke I may seeme not so much to haue deliuered what I thinke as to haue enquired of your Holinesse what I ought to thinke Fare you well The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholike disposition to the See of Rome and his sinceritie in the handling of this question The opinion of the Diuines and Canonists touching the Popes authoritie in temporall matters and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers and a taxation of Bozius his sophistrie touching the same Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporall iurisdiction but rather inioyned Obedience to be giuen euen to Heathen Princes and a comparison betweene the ambition and vsurpation of the later Popes and humilitie of the ancient Chap. 4. That the later Popes serued themselues of two aduantages to draw to themselues this vast authoritie Temporall ouer Princes viz. partly through the great reuerence which was borne to the See of Rome partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication Chap. 5. That it cannot be proued by any authoritie either Diuine or Humane that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporall authoritie ouer any Christian Princes Chap. 6. That no instance can be giuen of any Popes of higher times that any such authoritie was vsurped and practised by them and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times in regard of the modestie and pietie of the former Chap. 7. An answere made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people coerce and chastise the olde Emperors and Kings and therefore forbare them more then now she neede to doe Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage to execute any lawfull power vpon euill Princes but she forbare to doe it in regard she knew not any such power ouer them Chap. 9. That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine that Henrie the 4. Emperour and other Christian Princes vpon whom the Popes haue practised their pretended temporall authoritie might be dealt withall more securely then the former Princes Chap. 10. The censure of the worthie Bishop Frisingens vpon the course which Gregorie the 7. tooke against Henrie the 4. Emperour and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church and vnfortunate to the Pope himselfe Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and
ought not to maruell a whit if the Diuine commandements of fearing and honouring the King are so deepely impressed in the mindes of many Subiects that they giueno place to contrary precepts but rather employ all their care that therebe no obedience at all giuen to the aduerse edicts of the Pope either absolutory or prohibitory It hath beene oft tould me by great Personages and those good men that that diuine Precept of honouring Kings was of so great force with them and had taken so deepe roote in their mindes that they did perswade themselues that by no Bulles nor contrary Indulgences they could be discharged of the scruple and weight of conscience and purchase security in the inner man vz. their soules that they should not performe and execute so cleere and manifest a commandement of Natuarll and Diuine law nor yeeld the obedience promised and due to their Prince And this is the reason why so few of the Nobility did make defection from Henry the 4. Emperour none from Phillip the Faire none also from Lewes the 12. both Kings of France by reason of the Popes Bulles and Censures contayning sentence of Deposition For that we mistake not any way we must vnderstand that this Plenitude of Apostolicall power doth onely comprehend that power which the Lord Iesus the sonne of God when he liued in the world as a man amongst men was pleased to haue and that so farre the Popes represent Christ vnto vs and is his Vicar as we haue shewed aboue out of the doctrine of the most learned Bellarmine but not that power which he as the sonne of God and God himselfe equall with the father had from all eternity and reserued to the omnipotencie of his Diuinity Whereof he saith All power is giuen me in Heauen and in Earth Although I see some play the fooles or rather the mad-men so much that they athrme that this Omnipotency is also giuen to the Pope and to prooue the same doe spin out a notorious argument of their owne vanity in this maner Christ committed to the Pope the deputation of his office as it is Matth. 16. cap. 24. q. 1. can quodcunque But all power in Heauen and in Earth was giuen to Christ Math. 28. Ergo The Pope which is his Uicarc hath this power Extra ae translat cap. quanto So Peter Bertrandus in his additions Adgloss extrauag Vnum sanctam de maior obed Who also was so bould as to adde that which is not far from blasphemy For the Lord should not seeme to haue beene wise or discreet that I may speake it with his reuerence vnlesse hee had left such a one behinde him who could doe all these things Had this man thinke you any braine No maruell if Io. Gerson said that Pusillos little ones that is to say simple and ignorant Christians being deceiued by such kind of vnskilfull Glosâ—ators and Postillators Estimare Papam vnum Deum qui habet potestatem omnem in Caelo in Terra Surely such grosse flatterers haue spoiled and corrupted the iudgement and liues of many Popes Neither is it maruell if Pius the fift the Pope did tell Martinus Aspilineta That the Lawyers hee meant the Canonists I thinke were accustomed to attribute a great deale too much power to the Pope Of whom Iohn de Turre cremata It is a great wonder saith he that Popes doe speake moderately of the power which is giuen them Euen certaine paltry Doctorculi without any true ground will needs by flatterie make them equall with God To which appertaines that which the Cardinall of Cusa writeth a man very conuersant in all Philosophie humane and diuine and in storie besides that certaine writers being willing to exalt the Roman See worthy of all praise more a great deale then is expedient or comely for the holy Church doe ground themselues on apocryphall writings and so deceiue both Popes and people CHAP. XXVIII NOw the errour of these men whereby they giue to the Pope all power both humane and diuine was bredde partly out of the Apocryphall writings as hath beene said partly out of certaine rescripts of Popes being conceiued more darkly then was cause and wrong vnderstood according to the letter as they say For to speake the truth there is no kinde of people more vnskilfull and ignorant then these bare and meere Canonists are which I would not haue vnderstood onely of the knowledge of liberall learning and of the propertie of speech for this kind of ignorance is to be borne withall in them as the common fault of that age wherin they wrote but euen of the knowledge of that very art which they professe which they haue clouded and darkened with infinite varieties of distinctions and opinions For the greatest part of them dwelt only in the Popes Canons and Constitutions seeking none or very little outward helpe out of diuinitie and other sciences as they should haue done Those Rescripts whereof I speake and which bredde errour in these men are extant vnder the title of De translatione Episcopi wherein Innocent the third compareth the spirituall mariage which is contracted betweene the Bishop and the Church with the carnall mariage which is betweene a man and a woman first in that because as the carnall matrimonie taketh her beginning from the Espousals and is ratified by mariage and consummate by commistion of bodies so also the spirituall contract of mariage which is betweene the Bishop and the Church is vnderstood to haue his beginning in the election his ratifying in confirmation and to bee consummate in consecration Secondly in this that the speech of our Lord and Sauiour in the Gospell Those whom God hath ioined let not man separate is to be vnderstood of both the matrimonies both carnall and spirituall Seeing therefore saith he the spirituall bond is stronger then the carnall it ought not to be doubted but that Almightie God hath reserued only to his iudgement the dissolution of the spirituall mariage which is betweene the Pope and the Church who hath reserued only to his owne iudgement the dissolution of the carnall mariage which is betweene the man and the woman commanding that whom God hath ioined together man should not separate And againe As the bond of lawfull matrimonie which is betweene man and wife cannot bee dissolued by man the Lord saying in the Gospell Those whom God hath ioined let not man separate so the spirituall contract of mariage which is betweene the Pope and the Church cannot bee dissolued without his authoritie who is the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Iesus Christ. And lest any man should obiect If God haue reserued to his owne only iudgement the dissolution of both the mariages both carnall and spirituall and the spirituall bond is stronger then the carnall how can it be that the Pope who is surely but a man can dissolue that spirituall bond Innocentius answereth in that place that it is done in that regard
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