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
bent themselues to Martirdome they had in the very infancie destroied that most horrible Monster It may bee that the Author of that booke wrote such things of a good minde and without any fraud but surely it cannot bee that as the state of the Church affaires doth now stand they should be thought to be of any weight or moment For when as all the world almost was bound to the catholike Church velut nexu Manâ—ipioque as the Ciuilians say that is by the straitest bands of seruice and dutie euen then saith he were those times such as wherein the Bishops ought to haue beene more ready to haue suffered Martirdome then to haue enforced Princes to order and now when partly Infidels partly Heretikes haue spread ouer all Asia Afrike Europe one or two kingdomes onely excepted and that the Church is reduced almost to so great straites as euer it was he is not of the minde that the Bishops are required by the same necessitie to performe this dutie But surely this is too much either negligence in searching or indulgence in iudging and aduising neither ought a learned man and a Diuine as the Author seemeth to be to open to the Prelates of the Church who are as it were by a certaine storme caried into the same licence of liuing I say to open them so easie a way to forsake their dutie that they may suppose that they ought not to be so ready in these daies to Martirdome as to raise warre against euill Princes who it is certaine that without warres they can neuer be reduced into order and depriued of their kingdomes How much righter were they who whether they were the first of the Iesuites or of some other Order for I haue it onely by report presented themselues to the Cardinals at Rome and euen as they passed in state according to the manner did very sharpely reprooue their effeminatenesse their ryot their carelesnesse because that the most turbulent tempest of the Lutherane heresie being risen a little before that time taught the Prelates of the Church an other manner of life and required other fashions at their hands Therefore by these it is plaine that the Author of the answere is much deceiued in laying the reason of the difference in the dissimilitude of those ancient and these times as far as concernes the dutie state and condition of the Bishops and Prelates of the Church CHAP. VII THe other reason which he brings in is nothing better That the Church forsooth did not therefore beare with Constantius Valens and others for that they lawfully succeeded in the Empire no more than they did with Leo Henrie and Childerike which no lesse lawfully succeed but because she could not without hurt of the people correct them these she could For this is most false and I woonder that Bellarmine followed this reason elsewhere I say it is most false that the Church could not coerce and chastise them as easily as these I will not say more easily and without the hurt of the people whether she would haue attempted the matter by armes or vse some policie and the meane of some deuout person for at this time the whole world was Christian vnder Constantius as is euident by a letter of Constantine the Great to the Church recorded by Eusebius and Nicephorus and the greatest part of it orthodoxe so as they wanted not strength to oppresse the Emperour if they had held it lawfull or godly to take vp armes and contend against a lawfull Prince And truely it is credible that God would honour with a victorie both easily and not very costly for bloud his owne souldiers who should vndertake such a warre not of hatred or ambition but of a meere zeale to preserue the Church from ruine Moreouer there was a great multitude of monkes in Egypt and Lybia and an innumerable companie of other godly men of all sorts swarmed all ouer Asia and Europe amongst whom no doubt there were many of no lesse zeale then that wretch who murdered Henry the 3 king of France but furnished with more knowledge and grace whereby they prescribed a meane to inconsiderate headlong and rash zeale These men if it had beene lawfull might easily haue dispatched the Emperour without tumult of warre and noyse of armes and if so be the Church had had any power ouer him they might haue put the same in execution without any harme to the people What should I speake of Iulianus the successor of Constantius Could not the Church thinke you chasten him without any harme at all to the people when as being a shamefull Apostate and such a one as neuer was found amongst Christians he had his whole armie which he coÌ„manded consisting of Christians for euen after his death when Iouinianus being by generall consent chosen Emperor had proclaimed that himselfe was a Christian therfore that he would not coÌ„mand an army of Infidels the souldiers answered and generally cried out Neuer feare noble Emperour neither doe you refuse our gouernment as vnwoorthie for you are like to be a Commander of Christians who are brought vp in the discipline of pietie for we are Christians and those which be of the elder sort learned Constantinus his instruction the younger sort of Constantius Neither did he that died last rule so long time as could serue the turne to settle the poison in those few that had been circumuented abused by him I could wish that both the author of that booke the Reader of this would consider diligently Whether the Church seconded with so great power had not been able with ease to take that Emperour away without any harme of the people especially seeing the Emperors were at that time created by the souldiers alone who amongst those first times of Religion and hope of Martyrdome esteemed nothing more honorable then to beleeue and obey their Prelates deliuering to them the law and will of God Now if they had learned in those Schooles of the most holy Fathers that it was lawfull for the Church to depriue a wicked Prince of his gouernment and that it is lawfull for such subiects to take away and murder such a Ruler either by open force or secret practise there was nothing more easie for them then to depriue Iulian of his empire or take away his life and without any tumult or danger or publike losse to suffect an other at their pleasure in his place For now the right of nominating the Emperour was by long custome supposed to belong to the armie as also in very deed Iouinianus first and after Valentinianus both confessors of Christ after the death of of Iulianus were both aduanced to the Empire by the same armie Nay what will you say that although the whole armie would not haue conspired against the enemy of Christ yet those souldiers alone whom we mentioned out of Nazianzen in our books De Regno together with Iouinianus the Confessor would with little a doe haue
men and is iudged of no man And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malitious Pope whensoeuer he conceiueth and burneth with any priuate hatred against any King though he be neuer so good to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogatiue that hee may turne him out of his Kingdome and reduce him to the estate of a priuate man Which J would not speake in this place for I would not presage so hardly of the Gouernours of the holy See but that all the world doth vnderstand that the same hath in former ages beene practised by diuers Popes And it is not yet aboue the age of a good olde man since Iulius the II. did most wickedly and vniustly take from Iohn King of Nauarre his Kingdome by Ferdinando of Aragon by this very pretence of the Papall authoritie the same Iohn being not guiltie or conuinced of any crime but onely because he fauoured Lewes the French King And if to doe matters of this nature is not to be superiour in temporall affaires I would gladly learne of these great Masters what it is to be a superiour One thing I know if this opinion of theirs bee true that the Pope is able to doe more against Kings indirectly then if he should haue directly any command ouer them Of which point we haue spoken something before If therefore the Pope de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine shall goe about by his Decree or Bull to forbidde them to obey their King may not all the people againe or some in the peoples behalfe answer the Pope in this manner Holy Father You are not aboue our King in temporalties and in that respect you cannot hinder the temporall obedience which wee performe vnto him Why doe you forbidde vs to doe that which God commands vs to doe Is it because it is at your pleasure to interprete the will of God comprehended in the diuine Law and in the Scriptures But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation bee made as doth wholly make the law void and vtterly doth destroy and dissolue the commandement If there be any thing doubtfull or darke in the Law of God wee presently flie to the See of Peter that is to the See which you now doe hold to receiue the interpretation of the truth but that which is cleere and manifest of it selfe that needeth no light of any interpretation Seeing then our Lord and Sauiour commands vs to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those things which are Gods and after by his Apostle to be subiect to Princes and Powers and to bee obedient to them It is your part to declare vnto vs what things be Caesars that is to say what things belong to our King and what be Gods that both of them may haue that which belongeth to them and in this distinction of things we will willingly heare your voice But when you say I will haue you giue nothing to Caesar or to your Prince you contradict Christ and therefore wee heare not your voice Wee doe indeede confesse and professe also that the exposition and interpretation of your Holinesse should take place touching the obseruation of the diuine Law but we affirme absolutely that that is not to be receiued which maketh a scorne both of the Law of God and of Nature and bringeth the same into contempt As for example not to digresse from the matter we haue in hand We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates in the obseruation of this commandement we as obedient children doe willingly embrace your expositions and restraints which doe not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandement it selfe as when you say that from hence there growes no obligation to obey Kings but in those matters which belong to their temporall iurisdiction that all spirituall things are to bee reserued to the Vicar of Christ and to the Church Also when as you doe aduertise vs that wee ought not to yeeld obedience to the King in that which he commands against the Law of God or Nature or which otherwise is repugnant to good manners But when as you simply and absolutely command vs that we doe not in any sort obey our lawfull Prince or any of his charges commandements and lawes wee may not obey this commandement of yours because this is not to interprete the Commandement of God which is granted to your Holinesse but vtterly to abrogate and ouerthrow the same which you cannot doe by any meanes Christ when he deliuered to Peter the keies of the kingdome of heauen did not giue him power faciends de peccato non peccatum that is to say that which is sinne to make it to be none Therefore in this point we will follow the common doctrine of the Canonists That we ought not to obey the Popes commandement if either it bee vniust or that many mischiefes or scandals are likely to ensue thereof or else the disturbance and disquietnesse of the state of the Church and the Christian Common-wealth be likely to grow of the same and therefore if the Pope should command any thing to religious men which were against the substance of order that is which should bee contrarie to the rule professed by them they are not bound to obey it as Felinus interpreteth in cap. accepimus de fid instrum cap. si quando de rescript as the same Innocent teacheth elsewhere whom Martin of Carats in his tractate De Principibus quast 408. and Felinus in de cap. si quando and d. cap. accepimus doth report and follow How much lesse then ought the subiects of Kings to giue eare to the Pope going about to withdraw them from the obedience which is due to their King by the law of God and Nature and confirmed with the most straight obligation of an oath If you will vs to withdraw our neckes from the yoke and seruice of our King for this cause because a spirituall good is hindred by our obedience which is giuen to him by vs wee answer that this mischiefe whatsoeuer it bee chanceth to fall out by some accident for simply and of it selfe euill cannot grow out of good nor good out of euill Now wee haue against our willes committed that accident but we cannot hinder it Wee discharge the dutie due to our King and according to patience in doing well wee seeke glorie honour and immortalitie He if he abuse the obedience due vnto him and so great a benefit of God hee shall feele God to be a most sharpe Judge and Reuenger ouer him But it is not lawfull for vs to forsake our dutie and to transgresse the commandement of God that euen a very great good should follow thereby lest wee purchase to our selues the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce He that commands to obey our Kings and to yeeld to Casar those things which be Casars putteth no distinction betweene good and euill Princes and therefore ought not we to make any
distinction If as B. Augustine teacheth hee who hath vowed continence to God ought by no meanes to offend euen with this recompence that he beleeueth he may lawfully marie a wife because she who desires to marie with him hath promised that shee will bee a Christian and so may purchase to Christ the soule of a woman which lieth in the death of infidelitie who if shee marie him is ready to prooue a Christian What excuse shall wee vse to God if wee for the hope of some contingent good should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths which wee haue giuen to God and our King For there is nothing more precious then a soule for which our Lord and Sauiour hath vouchsafed to die And therefore if we may not sinne to gaine that to Christ for what cause shal it be lawfull for vs to sinne Moreouer in that you say that you doe free vs and pronounce vs free from the bond of this dutie that taketh not from vs all scruple of conscience but causeth vs to hang in suspence and the more to doubt of your authoritie because wee know that the commaundement wherein you promise to dispence with vs is ratified by the law of God and Nature and that your Holinesse can neuer no not by vertue of the fulnesse of your power dispense with any in the law of God and Nature Therefore wee will obey you in spirituall matters and the King in temporall matters God commands both wee will performe both To be short the comminations and threatnings which you insert in your Mandate we doe wonder at surely and in some part we feare them but yet we are not altogether so fearefull as to bee more afraid of them then we ought or that we should be so terrified with them as for feare of an vniust Excommunication to denie to our King the iust and lawfull obedience which is due vnto him For although it bee a common speech that euery Excommunication is to bee feared yet we ought to know that an vniust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced but rather him by whom it is denounced Therefore if you strike vs with the edge of your Excommunication because we will not at your commandement transgresse the Commandement of God and malum facere your malediction and curse shal be turned into a blessing so as although we may seeme to be bound outwardly yet inwardly wee remaine as it were loosed and innocent These and such like are the reasons which haue so settled the faith as well of the Clergie as Nobilitie and euen of the whole Commons of France toward their Kings that they haue resolutely withstood certaine Popes who haue earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyaltie and obedience of their Kings and haue scorned the Popes Bulles and the sentence of deposition and depriuation from the kingdome nay more that they haue not beleeued therefore not without reason that they are bound by any Ecclesiastique Censures or may iustly bee enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication For my part surely I doe not see what may iustly bee blamed in the former answer and defense of the people vnlesse it be imputed to them and be sufficient to conuince them of contumacie because they doe not by and by put in execution without all delay or examination of the equitie euery commandement of the Pope as though it were deliuered euen by the voice of God himselfe which I thinke none in his right wits will iudge As for the other points they are grounded on most firme demonstrations most sound reasons and arguments and reasons of diuine and humane law viz. That it is the commandement of God that honour and obedience should be yeelded to Kings and Princes no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded That all the authoritie of the Pope consisteth in spirituall matters That temporall affaires are left to secular Kings and Princes That the Pope is not superiour to Kings in temporall matters and therefore that he cannot punish them with temporal punishments Lastly that the Pope can in no sort dispense against the Law of Nature and of God whereby this obedience is commanded the subiects toward the Prince and for that cause can neither absolue and discharge the subiects from that obligation nor by iust excommunication censure them who doe not obey him when he forbiddeth them to giue lawfull obedience to the Prince Al which points are seuerally and distinctly concluded before with authorities testimonies and arguments which in my opinion cannot be answered which notwithstanding I will leaue to the iudgement of the Church For this is my minde and resolution to submit my selfe and all mine to the censure and iudgement of my most holy Mother CHAP. XXXI THose things which hitherto haue beene deliuered by vs of the soueraigne authoritie of Kings and Princes and of the dutie which is not to bee denied to them in all things which are not repugnant to Gods Commandements and to good manners they are confirmed by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers and the whole Church For although they had great opportunitâ—e and meanes to pull downe and to defect from their gouernment wicked Christian Princes by whom they had beene wronged with priuate and publike iniuries yet in no maner did they moue any question against them touching their authoritie and rule they denied them no parcell of humane obsequie and obedience Only they wisely freely and stoutly resisted their errours And so holding the multitude in their dutie towards God and their King they obserued both precepts of fearing God and honouring the King And in very deede this is the principall remedie to preserue mens mindes from slipping and reuoke them from errour and the most ready way and meane to reduce Kings and Princes being furiously caried headlong with a frenticke heresie from immanitie and fiercenesse to courtesie and mildnesse from errour to truth from heresie to the faith which course the ancient Fathers euer held in such like cases which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages and had not arrogated to themselues that same insolent and proud and hatefull domination ouer Kings and Emperours in temporall matters it had gone better then at this time it doth with the Christian Common-wealth and peraduenture those heresies wherewith wee are now sore pressed might haue beene strangled in the very cradle For euen the issue and the euent of businesse to this day doth sufficiently teach that the Popes doe little or nothing auaile while they hold this high slipperie and steepe headlong way but that they doe more times raise troubles schismes and warres by this meane in Christian Countries then propagate the faith of Christ or increase the profit and enlarge the liberty of the Church How vnprofitable and hurtfull to the Christian Common-wealth that assault was of Gregorie the VII vpon Henrie the IV. which Gregorie was the
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
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
the Passion that thou put of thy body that with the cast cloathes of thy flesh sacrifised thou maiest buy a crowne of Martyrdome which thou maiest gather out of the blessings of the Lord who preached that it was the summe of all Crownes if a man suffer persecution for righteousnesse Lastly that you may know of what passion he spake least he should trouble the mindes of his Disciples he brought foorth the example touching himselfe saving Because as yet that which is written ought to be fulfilled in me that he was reputed with the iniust Thus he To which I will at last adioyne that Bellarmine himselfe in the bookes de summo Pontifice prooueth that it is not the meaning of that place of the Gospell that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall and Temporall sword I answered saith he that no mention is made in that place of the Gospell of the Spirituall and Temporall sword of the Pope but onely that by those words the Lord would admonish his Disciples that in the time of his passion they should be in those straightes and in that feare wherein they are wont to be who are glad to sell their câ—ate to buy them a sword withall Where vpon hee affirmeth that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the viij did mystically onely interpret this place of the two swords Which seeing it is so and that it is certaine both by the interpretation of the Fathers and also by the confession of Bellarmine himselfe that the words of our Sauiour are not truely properly and strictly to be taken of those swords about which all our swords are drawen and we together by the eares surely then that speech of Bernard is very wrongfully alleadged to prooue that the Pope in any case hath Temporal power ouer Christian Princes or that the Temporall sword is vnder the Spirituall sword the which neither S. Bernard saith there neither â—â—uld so say without wresting and peruerting the place Therefore although we grant neuer so much that the place is to be vnderstood mystically of the Spirituall and Temporall sword yet that exposition of Bernards will onely worke thus much that we may vnderstand that Christian Kings and Princes ought to wage warre for the Church by the Counsell of the Church or of the Pope Which no sober man will euer deny And so Christ if in this manner we vnderstand his words mystically two swords being shewed said Satis est not to signifie that one sword should be subiect to the other or that both of them should be in the hand of the Pope and the Priests for that exposition is faulty and is repugnant both to right reason and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers wherein it is taught that Kings and Emperours haue God onely for their superiour in temporalities but to admonish vs that there should be at the last in the Christian Common-wealth a meeting and concourse of both the swords Spirituall and Temporall when Princes should be conuerted to the faith and that by them two the Church should be euery way protected and defended from iniury But because we are fallen into this notable place of S. Bernard I would wish the reader by the way diligently to consider with me that which I know not whether any hath obserued heretofore What is the reason that he writing to Eugenius the Pope of the temporall sword first saith tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus Then a few lines after doth adde that the same sword is to be vsed nutu sacerdotis and addes not forsitan Doth that same forsitan either abound in the former sentence or faile in the latter The truth is that the godly and wise man did it of purpose that he might with some finenesse distinguish the person of the Pope from the pontificall or sacerdotall authority and office and teach that it importeth very much whether the Pope or Eugenius although both Pope and Eugenius were the same doe bid or forbid any thing I meane whether the Pope as a man obnoxious to the perturbations of the mind would haue the sword drawen not for the Church according to the duty of his function but by the instigation of a corrupt affection or as a Priest that is a good and holy man doe command or refuse that the sword should be drawen and war waged seruing not his owne turne but the profit of the Church As if he should say ô Eugenius cheefe Bishop the temporall sword is not absolutely and simply to be drawen at thy commandement but peraduenture euen then when as for the euident commodity of the Church you shall aduise them with wise and sound counsell who haue the sword in their power but not then when as out of the desire you haue either to practise ancient enmity with any or to powre out any new conceiued hatred or to satisfie any ambitious desire to rule you shall purpose to set christian Kings and people by the eares or to wage and bring any was upon them For that is a point of a Priest this of a Man For that is a meditation and action of a Priest this of a man that of a Bishop this of Eugenius or some other that holds the Bishops sea That this was S. Bernards meaning in those words the actions of certaine Bishops who haue beene beyond measure transported with anger and pride haue plainly declared But let vs returne to our purpose CHAP. XX. THe third reason in Bellarmine is It is not lawfull for 〈◊〉 to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an be 〈◊〉 vncendeauour to draw his subiects to heresie or 〈◊〉 But to iudge whether a King doe draw to heresie or 〈…〉 Pope to whom the charge of religion is committeâ— Ergo It belongs to the Pope to iudge that a King is to be 〈◊〉 not to be â—epoâ—ed And he labours to prooue thâ— proposition of this reason by three arguments Therefore I answer to that That he saith that it is not 〈…〉 to tolerate a King that is an heretike or an 〈◊〉 c. that this proposition is as false as false may be Otherwise all antiquity is to be condemned which did beare with great submission and patience Kings hereticall and infidelâ— who went about to destroy the Church of God 〈…〉 propter conâ—cientiam that is not 〈◊〉 that they wanted strength to enforce â—icked 〈…〉 that they iudged that they might not by the law oâ— God But becauâ—â— we haue in our books against the 〈…〉 and also aâ—oue in this booke we haue 〈…〉 hurtfull and mischieuous erâ—â—â— there is no cause whâ— we should dwell any long 〈…〉 the faâ—â—â—ood thereof It only remaineth that 〈…〉 shâ—w the faults of the arguments wherewith 〈…〉 to prooue his false proposition I 〈◊〉 first argument he fâ—tches out of Deuteronâ—mie where the people is forbidden to chuse a King which is not 〈…〉 brethren that is who is not a Iew least he dâ—aw them to idolatry therefore also Christians
summae de Ecclesia Secondly it may be said and better with Albert Pighius lib. 5. Hierar Ecclesi cap. 7. that there is a difference betweene Heathen and Christian Princes for when the Princes were heathen the Bishop was not their Iudge but cleane contrarie he was subiect to them in all ciuill Causes no lesse then other men for it is plaine that the Bishop was not Iudge of them because he is not a Iudge but of the faithfull 1. Cor. 6. What haue I to doe to iudge of them which are without And that of the contrarie he is ciuilly subiect to them both of right and indeed as it is plaine For the Christian law depriueth no man of his right and dominion Therefore euen as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and to Kings so also after Wherefore Peter and Paul euery where exhort the faithfull to be subiect to Princes as appeareth ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeale to Caesar and acknowledged him his Iudge when hee was accused of the sedition and tumult which was raised amongst the people Thus he whereby it is plaine that not onely want of strength was the reason why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes but also because all law both diuine and humane was against such an action and in the same booke and Chapter he teacheth more openly when hee saith that to iudge punish depose belonged onely to a superiour which is most true and without all controuersie is confirmed by the common iudgement of men And now by these most certaine Principles set downe and granted by him euery one that hath any skill in reasoning may gather that the Christians although they were mightie both in numbers and strength could not by right depose Nero Diocletian and other heathen and wicked Princes and that is concluded by this strong and vnanswerable demonstration Subiects cannot iudge punish or depose a Superiour But all Christians were subiect to Nero Diocletian c. and other Emperours and Heather Kings Ergo they could not depose such Emperours or Kings The proposition is granted by him and likewise the Assumption which doe stand vpon most certaine truth and the conclusion depends of the Antecedents by a necessary consecution and is directly contrary to that which he had said That Christians in times past might lawfully depos Nero Diocletian c But for that they wanted temporall power strength they forbare that purpose Therfore it is false and worthy to be reprehended For aientia negantia simul vera esse nequeunt Heereby also is the falshood of the opinion of S. Thomas euident which we haue refuted aboue in this Chapter CHAP. XXII I Said that Bellarmine vsed a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason which is That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretike King whereof I haue already noted the faults of the first Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what maner of arguments they are and what strength they haue Therefore the second argument is this To tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King labouring to draw men to his sect is to expose religion to manifest danger But Christians are not bound neither indeed ought they to tolerate an infidell King with the manifest danger of Religion for when there is difference and contention between the law of God and the law of Man it is a matter of Gods law to keepe and obserue the true faith and religion which is one onely and not many but it is a point of mans law that we haue this or that King To these things I answer that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these doe not reason rightly nor according to arte but doe propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without forme For for that which he assumes But Christians are not bound yea they ought not without euident danger of religion to tolerate an Infidell King Insteed whereof should haue beene placed in good Logike this Assumption But Christians are not bound yea they ought not to expose religion to euident danger That the Conclusion might follow thereof Ergo It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King For the assumption which he setteth downe is almost iust the same with the Proposition that is in question But to allow him somewhat let vs grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good forme and let vs answer to the force of the argument I say then that his Proposition is false I say againe that it is not true that To tolerate an Heretike or Heathen King endeuouring to draw men to his sect is to expose Religion to manifest danger But it is onely to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretike or Infidell King to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people seeing now the people hath no iust and lawful remedy left them to deliuer Religion but onely Constancy and Patience And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians vnlesse we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians who did without any shrinking or tergiuersation or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius Iuliaenus Valens and other renouncers of Christian religion because they came lawfully to the Empire and whom they might most easily haue remooued or deposed they honoured them with all honour duty and reuerence euen because they were their Emperours and Kings These holy fathers then and worthy Christians in that age did tolerate Heretike and Infidel Kings although if we onely looke at their temporall strength they were furnished with excellent meanes and opportunities to depose them and yet none that is in his wits will euer say that they exposed Religion to most euident danger thorow that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy Now I speake of tolerating that King who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen where Christians doe not rule or who when he was admitted and enstalled into his Gouernment was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King ouer themselues no law nor religion enforceing whom they know to be either an Heretike or an Infidell is indeed to expose Religion to most euident danger and in that behalfe it were a greeuous sinne in the Christians and they that doe it are worthy miserably to perish therefore Now for that which he deduceth out of the opposition betweene diuine and humane law I answer â—reeâ—ly that he is much deceiued in this that in this matter he supposeth there is a crosse encounter and conflict betweene the law of God and the law of man For they are not repugnant To keepe faith and Religion and to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King Neither is the one by diuine law the other by humane as he imagineth But they be two Preceptâ— of Gods law
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
flocke But a shepheard hath a threefold charge one about Wolues that hee driue them away by all meanes he can the other about the Rammes that he may shut them vp if they hurt the flocke with their hornes the third about the rest of the sheepe that he giue euery one conuenient food Ergo The Pope hath this triple charge Out of this principle and foundation are drawen three strong arguments as he surmiseth But not to goe farre first I answer to this very fundamentall proposition that it is all true and maketh for me and that the very contrarie of that which he affirmes may very handsomely be gathered from thence I say gathered that the Pope hath no temporall power at all or may exercise any vpon Christian Princes as he is the Vicar of Christ and successor of S. Peter seeing such a manner of power is not necessarie for the Pope for the discharging and fulfilling of his Pastorall dutie And that is euidently concluded by this argument Christ by commending his sheepe to Peter gaue him all power necessarie to defend the flocke But he gaue him no temporall power Therefore temporall power is not necessarie to defend the flocke Secondly we will proceed in this manner It is a thing vnreasonable that the Pope who is the successor of S. Peter should haue more power then had Peter himselfe But Peter had not any temporall power ouer Christians Therefore Neither the Pope as he is his successor The proposition of the former reason is without all controuersie true And the Assamption is prooued by the testimonie and confession of Bellarmine himselfe For lib. quint. de Rom. Pontif. where he endeuours to establish his opinion of this thing by a similitude of the flesh and the spirit he writeth thus For as the spirit and flesh stand one toward the other in Man so doe the two powers in the Church for the flesh and the spirit be as it were two Common-wealthes which may be found both separated and toyned together flesh is found without the spirit in beasts spirit is found without flesh in the Angels and a little after Euen so the Ciuill power hath her Princes Lawes Iudgements c. Likewise the Ecclesiasticall her Bishops Canons Iudgements the one hath for her end a temporall peace the other euerlasting saluation sometimes they are found seuered as once in the time of the Apostles sometime toyned as now If these powers were seuered in the time of the Apostles as in trueth they were both in Right and in Deed it followeth necessarily that S. Peter had no temporall power otherwise it should be false that they were seuered for it there be place to the similitude propounded by him it will follow that as there is nothing fleshly in Angels and nothing spirituall in beasts so in the time of the Apostles there should be no temporall power in the Church or spirituall in the Ciuill state Therefore we must confesse either that temporall power is not necessarie for the chiefe Pastor of the Church or that the Prince of the Apostles himselfe and cheefe Pastor S. Peter was not furnished and accomplished with all things necessarie for the discharge of his Pastorall dutie And this is as contrarie as contrarie may be to that which he had already said in his fundamentall reason as I may call it to wit That all abilitie necessarie to defend the flocke was giuen to Peter The same also is prooued by this that all ciuill and temporall power at that time depended of heathen Princes to whom Peter himselfe witnesse Bellarmine although the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ was subiect in temporalities both by Right and in Deed. Wherof it followeth that either S. Peter was induced with no temporall power or that he receiued it from heathen Princes otherwise as we said before it should be false that those powers were then separated But it is certaine that he receiued none of them and therefore that he had none at all And certainly these reasons are more plaine then any man without fraud and cunning can gainesay that it is a wonder to see that learned men and otherwise godly should so be blinded with an inconsiderate and vnaduised heate that they should not sticke to embrace and follow doubtfull things for certaine obscure for euident crooked for straight for plaine and easie reasons those which be perplexed and intricately bewrapped with many controuersies and contradictions But they take care you will say to amplifie and adorne the Sea Apostolike with the increase and accession of this power and authoritie And is there any Catholike who doth not commend their minds that are affected to that Sea which is the foundation and strength of our faith That they doe grace and aduance by all meanes that Sea which no man can sufficiently commend according to her worth I doe much commend them but that they attribute more to it then is fit and that with the great scandall of many that I doe not commend for we our selues also do no lesse honour the same Sea we no lesse loue reuerence admire it as that which is the true seate of Peter and being placed in the rocke which is Christ hath ouercome all heresies and obtaineth by good right the chiefe place in the Church But the truth forbids that we should aduance her with this increase of Power our Conscience bearing vs witnesse before God and the Lord Iesu before whom in the day of the reuelation of the iust iudgement both these our writings and theirs shall appeare consigned with their owne merrits Therefore there is small cause why they should bring this former reason for themselues For Christ when hee said to Peter Pasce oues meas appointed him indeed Pastor of his flocke but a Spirituall Pastor not a Temporal and gaue him all ability necessary for that office whereby it appeares that Temporal power is not necessary for the Pope because Christ gaue it not to Peter himselfe Neither haue we heard any where that either S. Peter or any other of his Apostles did practise any temporall power or authority by vertue whereof he did either directly or indirectly that no man may suppose any force in words punish the forsakers of the Christian faith with Ciuill punishment after the manner of Magistrates It is true indeed that sometimes it hath come to passe that Temporall punishment as death or Torment hath followed a spiritual sentence the church at that time standing in need of miracles and wonders to confirme the faith which kind of punishments did strike a farre greater feare into the mindes of Christians then if after the manner of men they had suffered punishment at the hands of Ciuill Magistrates And this is that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians What will you shall I come to you with a rod or in loue and in the spirit of meekenesse The rod he calleth that spirituall power which by the wonderfull working of God did at that time
King continually vnto the 68. yeere which was the end of his life and that hee was not any time depriued of the authoritie of his gouernement Indeed it is true hee dwelt apart in a house by it selfe and therefore by reason of his sicknesse hee could not execute those duties of a King which consist in action but that tooke not from him his interest in his kingdome nor authoritie of gouernment Otherwise wee must denie that children being inaugurated and crowned as in time pastâ— Ioas and Iosias and men of sawfull age are any Kings if once they fall into any grieuous disease of minde or bodie seeing they are hindred by their youth these by their sicknesse from the procuration and gouernment of the Kingdome which consisteth in action For the Scripture saith In the 27. yeere of Ieroboam King of Israel raigned Azarias who was called both Ozias and â—acharias the sonne of Amasias King of Iuda he was sixteene yeeres of age when hee began to raigne and raigned 52. yeeres in Ierusalem And againe in the same Chapter In the 52 yeere of Azariah King of Iuda raigned Phaâ—ee the sonne of Romelias ouer Israel in Samaria And Iosephus 〈◊〉 that this Izariah or Oziah died in the 68 yeerâ— of his age and the 52. of his raigne ' If therefore Ozias began to raigne being 16. yeeres of age and raigned 52. yeeres as the Scripture witnesseth and died in the 68. yeere what space I pray you in his life can be â—ound wherein he was iudged and depriued of his right in his Kingdome In the meane time his sonne was Curator or Regent to him as they are wont to haue â— qui in ea causasunt vt superesse rebus suis non possint For it is added in that storie Ioatham the sonne of the King gouerned the palace and ruled the house of the King and iudged the people of the Land Marke I pray you that Ioatham is called the sonne of the King in the life and sicknesse of his Father and Gouernour of the Palace and Ruler of the House of the King Now hee iudged the people because iudgements could not come to the King through the force of his disease and the separation by the prescript of the Law of God as Lyranus teacheth in that place To be short the Scripture saith And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Field of the Kings Sepulchers because he was leprous and Ioatham his sonne raigned in his stead Marke againe that Ioatham beginneth not to raigne but after the death of his Father Therefore although it bee true that Ozias by reason of his leprosie was separate by the iudgement of the Priest because it was expresly prouided by the Law of God yet it is not true that hee was depriued of the authoritie of raigning or enforced to renounce his Kingdome to his sonne as these men falsely doe auerre The authority of raigning and the administration of a Kingdome doe differ very much and no lesse then in the ciuill Law proprietie and possession The authoritie is alwaies in the person of the King and is ioined with the right of the Crowne but the gouernment and procuration or administration may fall into other mens hands so as one may be King and another the Gouernour Whence they who in the minoritie or diseases of Kings doe beare the highest place of gouernment in the Kingdome are honoured with the title of Gouernour Regent Tutor Protector or some such like and they propound nor handle any publike affaire in their owne name but in the name and authoritie of the King being either infant or sicklie Therefore this example of Ozias is so farre from helping anything to this temporall authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings as it maketh very much for to impugne and ouerthrow the same For if as he reporteth out of the Apostle and wee confesse that all things befell to the Iewes in figures and if the corporall leprosie for which a man was separated from the multitude of the children of Israel and dwelt alone without the campe was a figure of the spirituall leprosie that is of heresie by Augustine his testimonie to bee short if the Priesthood of Aaroa was a figure of the Priesthood of the new Law out of these figures two arguments are appositely drawne to this question whereof the former doth notably confirme the spirituall authority of the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes the other prooueth that this temporall authoritie of his whereof we speake is altogether commentitious and forged vsurped and contrarie to the Law of God The former argument is framed thus As the Priests in times past banished out of the Temple King Ozias being strucke with the leprosie that he might dwell without the Citie so at this day the Pope may iudge and by excommunication separate from the communion of the faithfull a King infected with heresie which is a spirituall leprosie and so constraine him to dwell without the Citie that is without the Church Catholike vntill hee be cleansed from his leprosie that is vntill hee haue absured his heresie But if such a leprosie sticke by him till death hee is not to bee buried in the Sepulchers of the Kings that is in the Church but in the field because hee is leprous that is to say an hereticke Now that I said that the Pope might separate an hereticke King by excommunication from the communion of the faithful it must bee vnderstood of the spirituall separation of soules and not of bodies For subiects ought not to denie their obedience to an excommunicate King The second argument may rightly bee concluded in this forme As the iudgement of the Priest of a corporall leprosie in the old Law wrought nothing but the separation of the leprous and relegation without the Campe or Citie and as the iudgement of the Priest touching the leprosie of Azaria or Ozia could not take from him the right of his Kingdome but onely imposed on him a necessitie to dwell by himselfe without the Citie for in that he did not actually as they say gouerne the Kingdome that fell out not through the sentence of the Priest who iudged of the leprosie but the force of the continuall disease of his bodie so also at this day the censure and sentence of the Pope whereby hee iudgeth and declareth a King to bee an hereticke although it cause a King to remaine without the Citie of God that is without the Catholike Church as hath beene said yet it cannot take from him the right and authority to raigne and so the figure doth very fitly conuene with the figured For in these figures of the old Testament the image of the authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings is not onely drawne in lineaments but fully expressed to the life that if any fit argument may be drawne from the shadow to the body from the figure to the figured none can more euidently or assuredly bee fitted then these from the constitution