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
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
twentie yeeres and rent the Church asunder with a continuall schisme may be an argument to vs that that Decree was not made by a diuine inspiration but by an humane passion nor that it proceeded from an ordinarie Iurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolike but either from an extraordinarie ambition or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeale of him that held the Sea For it is not likely that God who is the Author of Iustice and protector of the Church and who hath made the first executions of the spirituall power of the Church exceeding fearefull by present miracles and horrible effects would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinarie assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authoritie and power of his Church especially seeing he was with so many praiers inuocated by the Bishop for his helpe and the Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication in these wordes Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles and by your authoritie interpoâ—ed confirme that which I haue said that all men may now at the last understand if you can binde and loose in heauen that you are also as well able it earth to take away and giue Empires Kingdomes Principalities and whatsoeuer else mortall men may haue Let Kings now learne by this Kings example and all the Princes of the world what you are able to doe in heauen and how much you are in fauour with God and heereafter let them be afraid to contemne the commandements of holy Church But execute with speed vpon Henrie that all men may vnderstand that this Child of iniquitie falleth out of his Kingdome not by chance but by your care Yet this I would intreat at your handes that he being led by repentance may at your request obtaine fauour of the Lord in the day of iudgement These and such like praiers being powred out to God and the Princes of the Apostles and Curses and Imprecations in solemne maner cast vpon Henrie who would not thinke that God who by his Apostles preserues his Church with a continuall protection would not easily suffer himselfe to be intreated and would not presently heare this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authoritie of the Church to be made manifest if any such authoritie had belonged to the Church Wheras notwithstanding cleane contrarie euery thing fell out crosse and vnhappie against the Pope and against the authors and fautors of the Popes partie whilest Henrie in the meane time triumphed and held his Empire still for that which he suffered from his sonne at last after fiue and twentie yeeres vnder a shew of religion as Frisingensis saith that makes little or nothing to this matter This was a pretext onely for a wicked sonne who was sicke of the Father before the time but the true cause was ambition and the burning desire of rule quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children and contrariwise as wee haue shewed at large other where One said excellently well patris longâ—oâ— vit a malo filio seruit us videtur CHAP. XI BY this as I suppose it is euident enough that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other wicked Princes because she then distrusted her might and strength nor because she could not reduce them to order without the great hurt of the people for indeed she might with more ease and lesse hurt to the people haue chastised those ancient Princes Then not onely Henry the fourth from whose businesse so lasting a schisme did spring but either Otho the fourth or Frederick the second or Philip Pulcher or Lewes the eleuenth or Iohn Nauarre or others against whom the Bishops being puffed vp with the successe of their affaires drew foorth their Sentences of Excommunication and depriuation of Kingdomes not for heresie nor for the euill gouernment of State nor at the request of the subiects but euen inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections I meane their priuate hatred To conclude not for that the state of the Church in that age would haue her Bishops more readie than in this time to suffer martyrdome for then the Church was in very safe estate and as we say sailed in the hauen as hauing been now anciently founded vpon the Apostolike constitutions and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs Yea such then was the state of the Church that there was much lesse need for Bishops to be readie for martyrdome than at this time for that so great a multitude then being as it were sprinckled with the fresh blood of the martyrs did in a maner sauour of nothing but martyrdome that the Pastour was no lesse admonished of his dutie by the example of the flocke than the seuerall persons of the people by the example of the Pastour But now ô lamentable case the case is quite otherwise the Church is tossed with most grieuous tempests and only not ouerwhelmed as yet with the furie of heretikes manie euen of those who desire to be called Catholikes being so affected that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles much lesse vndergoe death for true religion wherefore that life and heat may be giuen to that lukewarmnesse and that men might be stirred vp to the readiest way and as it were the shortest cut for their health who seeth not that there is need of Bishops to shew the way both by word and example and both to compose them themselues and to exhort others rather to martyrdome than to armes and insurrections to which we are prone by nature Who would not iudge that the fatherly pietie of Clement the eight ioyned with excellent wisdome whereby he endeuoureth to reduce to anâ—itie and to keepe in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church than the martiall furies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleuenth wherby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italie France Germanie Spaine and all 〈…〉 together by the cares 〈…〉 be thus surely we must needs confâ—â—◠〈…〉 ancient fathers of the Church 〈…〉 fault in that they did not only suffer 〈…〉 they might easily those guiltie and 〈…〉 of the saith but also courtcously reuerenced them and honoured them with regall titles and dignities or els we must needs thinke that they spared those maner of Princes for the reuerence of Maiestie the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone or surely we must beleeue that besides the reasons deliuered by the aduersaries there is yet some better behinde which none hitherto hath brought forth nor euer will as I suppose For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous worke which he writ against Kings to elude the â—orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers As though saith he
we are to thinke that there is the same reason of the Church to be established and which is established already that the Uine ought â—â—t to be planted and watered before it be pruned but that then that power was giuen to the Church when that of the Prophet was fulfilled Kings shall be thy Nurâ—es with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee shall lickâ— the dust of 〈…〉 that surely is such a toâ— as I do thinke not worth the answering seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knowes what he saith For â—hat were not the rotten members of the Church wont to be cut off euen from her infancie first beginning doth he not know that that spirituall incision which is proper to the Church begaÌ„ euen with the Church her self What say you to Ananias what to the Corinthian were they not cut off by the church If he know not this he is to be thought an ill Diuine a worse Vine-dresser seeing he euen in the very first planting shreds off whatsoeuer is super fluous and vnprofitable in the vine and suffers not the rotten and faultie branches to sticke out of the ground afterwards when it is a litle growenvp he lops and cuts it lest it should be ouercharged with vnprofitable and vnfruitfull stems But if he meane corporall incision he ought to know that the Church hath no skill of bloud I meane that she doth not execute death vpon any vnlesse peraduenture it falles out by miracle as in the person of Ananias and Saphâ—ra But what doth he thinke that the Church was not perfectly established in the times of Ambrose Hierome and Austine Or that it was not sufficiently planted watred that at that time it might be conueniently shred Surely S. Austine in one place affirmes that very few in his time were found that thought euill of Christ. Why then did the Church tolerate Ualens Ualentinianus Heraclitus and others for from Constantine the Great that Prophecie which he alleadgeth was fulfilled But it was not yet time to cut the Lords vineyard A worthy reason sure and to be ranked amongst that followes fooleries which in another place we set downe by themselues Now let vs goe to the maintainers of the indirect power CHAP. XII THese mens opinion I haue set downe aboue in the first and fift chapters which is That the Pope by reason of his spirituall Monarchie hath temporall power indirectly and that soueraigne to dispose of the temporalties of all christians and that he may change kingdomes and take them from one to giue them to another if it be necessary for the health of soules Against which opinion there are so many things that I hould it to be vtterly improbable if not incredible For first of all what is more contrary to it then that the whole christian antiquity euer iudged that Kings are lesse then God only that they haue God only for their iudge that they are subiect to no lawes of man and can be punished or coerced with no temporall punishments and therefore that which the authors of the law said Princeps 〈…〉 est that the Grecians cheefly vnderstand of penall lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Prince offending is not punished None of these things can stand with the opinion of the aduersaries For if it be true that the Pope may dispose of kingdomes and states of secular Princes and take from them their scepters and all manner of dignity it followeth necessarily that the Pope is superior and euen Iudge ouer Kings in temporall matters and besides that all Kings may be subiect to temporall punishments which is directly opposite as may be to the former opinion of the ancient Fathers The necessity of the consequution is plaine by this for that he who iudgeth an other lawfully must of necessity be superior ouer him whom he iudgeth For an equall hath not authority ouer an equall much lesse an inferior ouer a superior and also because the depriuation of a Kingdome euen as the publication of goods is to be reckned amongst temporall punishments and those very greeuous too What I pray you that the Bishops themselues confesse that Kings haue no superior in temporalities They haue and they haue not cannot be both true Therefore it is false that Kings haue no superiour in temporalities if an other may by law take their temporalities from them and giue them to an other For if this be not an act of superiority as I may speake I know not surely what it is to be superior or if to condemne a King vnheard and to punish him as farre as his regall dignity comes to be not to be the Iudge of a King we must confesse that no motion either of a iudgement or of a Iudge hath beene deliuered and lest vs by our Elders For in that they place the difference in the words Directe indirecte that belongs not to the power of iudgeing and to the effect of the iudgement but onely to the manner and way of acquiring so great a power For the Canonists doe say that the Pope hath receiued directly of Christ the temporal dominion of the whole world But these men I meane the Diuines deeme that he receiued such a dominion directly as if you should say by it selfe simply and without consideration of another thing but onely indirectly that is by consequence in regard of that spirituall power which he hath receiued directly from the Lord. Therefore this difference out of these words ought to be referred to the beginning and meane of acquiring a temporall power but not to the force and effect of the same For whether you say makes nothing for the strength and power of the Popes iudgement ouer Kings vnlesse peraduenture some may say that the Pope if he be an ill man may tyrannize ouer the Parsons and Estates of Kings more freely indirectly then directly But if the opinions of the aduersaries should take place Christian Kings and Princes shall not only be Clients and Vassals to the Pope in temporalities but that which is more base they shall hold their Kingdoms and Principalities as it were at his courtesie And this I doe easily prooue euen out of the very principles and grounds of the aduersaries The Pope may take from any man his kingdome and giue it to another if so be that it be necessary for the health of soules But to iudge and determine if it be necessary belongs to the same Pope of whose iudgement whether it be right or wrong none can iudge therefore where he listeth he may depriue euery man of his kingdome and giue it to another The Proposition in this argument is the very opinion of the aduersaries and the Assumption is without controuersie amongst all Catholikes for none but an Heretike will deny that the charge of soules belonges to the successour of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly the conclusion followes necessarily of the
Propositions and therefore if we grant them it cannot bee denied Therefore all this is true and wee grant it all but yet that which hee annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion is neither agreeable nor consequent which is that the Pastor may enioine the people c. For to be able or not to be able posse where the right and equity is disputed ought to bee vnderstoode not of the mere act but of the power which is lawfully permitted and which agreeth with law and reason So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that which hee is able to doe iustly and honestly And so the matter is brought about as we are enforced to enquire whether the Pope by the plenitude of his Apostolicke power as they speake can command enioine subiects that they dare not be so bold as to obey the edicts commandements lawes of their Prince vnder paine of excommunication And if he shall de facto commaund the law whether the Subiects are bound to obey any such commandement of the Pope Surely as I touched in the beginning for the Affirmatiue I could neuer in my life either my selfe find a waighty argument nor light vpon any inuented by an other But the contrary proposition is strongly maintained being built vpon the foundation which we spake of ere while viz. That the Pope cannot in any sort dispense against a law of nature and of God Vpon which ground is raised a most firme argument in my opinion which is concluded in this forme The Pope can commaund or dispense in nothing against the law Naturall and Diuine But to commaund or dispense in the matter of subiection and obedience due to Princes is against law naturall and Diuine Ergo The Pope cannot commaund or dispense in the same and by consequence cannot commaund the subiects that they doe not obey their temporall Prince in that wherein the Prince is superiour to him and if he shall de facto commaund it shall be lawfull for the subiects to disobey him with safety and good conscience as one that presumes to giue lawes without the compasse of his territory or iurisdiction Both the Propositions are most certaine Out of which the Conclusion is induced by a necessary consecution He that shall weaken the force of this Argument shall doe mee a very great pleasure and make me beholding to him For my part that I may ingenuously confesse my slender wit I doe not see in the world how it can bee checked by any sound reason for though it may bee said that obedience due to a superiour may bee restrained and hindered by him who is superiour to that superiour and that the Pope who is Father of all Christians is superiour to all Kings and Princes Christian in this that he is Father and therefore that hee may of his owne authority inhibite and restraine that the subiects doe not performe the reuerence and obedience due and promised to the Prince yet this reason is like a painted ordinance not able to beat down the strength of the former conclusion Seeing this which is said that obedience du to a superiour may be diminished or restrained or taken away by his commaundement who is superiour to that superiour this is true onely then when he who forbiddeth it is superiour in the same kind and line of power and superiority or in those things wherein obedience is due As for example the King may take frō the Lieutenant of his Armie his commaund and giue charge that the Armie obey him no more and the Lieutenant may vpon cause commaund that the souldier obey not the Tribune nor the Tribune the Centurion nor the Centurion the Decurion For that all these in the same kind I meane about militarie gouernment discipline but one aboue an other are superiour according to the order of dignity The same is true in the orders of the heauenly warfare and of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchie But the obedience of the subiects towards the Prince whereof wee speake consisteth in temporall matters wherein the Popes themselues confesse that there is none aboue the Prince But if none bee aboue him in temporalities surely it followeth that there is none that may forbid or hinder the subiection and obedience which is due to him from his subiects in temporalities I haue shewed aboue that these powers the spirituall and temporall are so distinct that neither as it is such doth commaund or serue the other And that they are not to be regarded who flie to their starting holes of distinctions and quirkes or rather those snares of verball captions by these words directè indirectè For it is most sure that hee hath a superiour in temporalties whome an other may in any sort commaund a-about temporall matters or who in temporall causes may bee iudged directly or indirectly by an other For iudgement is giuen of one against his will And no man is iudged but of his superiour Because an equall hath no commaund ouer an equall And indeed for the effect and issue of the matter there is no difference at all whether one haue authority and power ouer an other directly or indirectly For in those wordes directè indirectè or if you please directly and obliquely the difference is propounded to vs onely in the maner and way or order of obtaining and comming by the former but not in the liberty force and effect of exercising and executing the same But good God what can bee said more vnreasonably or more contrary to the selfe then this that a King hath no superiour in temporalties but is free from all bands of offences nor is brought to punishment by any lawes which all antiquitie and the whole Church hath euer held and againe that the Pope vpon cause or in some manner that is to say Indirectly is superiour to the King in temporalties and may punish him with temporall punishments that is with losse of kingdom rule yea life also For after that he is once defected thrown down from his throne by the Pope and reduced to the condition of a priuate man what remaineth but that he should vndergoe the last issue of this malice and that is either to prouide for his safety by speedy flight and so liue a miserable life out of his Countrey or if hee doe not in this manner prouide for himselfe bee will forthwith bee arraigned and conuinced in publike iudgment and then fall into the hands of a Gaoler or an Executioner and so there will be an end of him Now there is in this power which these good fellowes doe attribute indirectly to the Pope a soueraigne free and vncontrolled libertie to oppresse and to exercise tyrannie euen ouer good and innocent Kings For first of all they ordaine That it belongeth to the Pope to iudge if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed Secondly that there is no appeale from his iudgement Because he alone iudgeth all
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
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
directly any temporall power but onely Spirituall but that by reason of the Spirituall hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that verie great to dispose of the Temporalities of all Christians And so looke what they doe allow the Pope by a direct course the same doe these men giue him by an oblique and indirect meanes so as the meanes onely is diuers but the effect is the same For my part when I consider of this question I finde that neither of their opinions as touching the temporall power hath any certaine ground and yet if they be compared together that the Canonistes opinion may more easily be maintained then the Diuines especially seeing it is not contrary to the order of nature according to which a man by his right exerciseth authoritie granted vnto him ouer others and therefore it containes nothing vnpossible But the opinion of the Diuines as it is propounded by their owne side ouerturnes the naturall course of things which willeth that no man vse any power or authoritie ouer others which is neither by name granted to him nor is any whit necessary to the effecting of those things which are committed to his trust Therefore these Diuines do indeed very well refute the opinion of the Canonists but for all that with their leaue they thinke not a whit the better themselues whereby a man may see how much more easie it is to finde an vntruth in other mens writings then to defend a truth in his owne There is also euen amongst themselues a contention touching this point For many of them haue ioined themselues with the Canonists either for that they are deceiued with a shew of truth or that bearing too much and that a very blind affection to Peters Sea which indeed is woorthy all honour they would also grace it with this title of Power and Dignitie or being obliged by some speciciall fauors of the Popes haue by this endeuor of thankfulnes desired to draw their good opinions close to themselues I will not say to gaine them through this vnreasonable flattery of theirs And amongst these is one who being lately sprung out of the Congregation of the Oratrie hath stept foorth as a sharpe Abettour for the Canonists aboue other men Whom therfore a learned man a famous preacher as any is amongst the Iesuâ—tes when I asked him what he thought of this opinion of Bozius hee called him a Popes parasite For in his books he doth earnestly maintaine That all Kingly power and authoritie and Lordship of al things which are in earth are giuen to the Bishop of Rome by the Law of God and that what power soeuer whersoeuer in the world temporall Kings and Princes aswell beleeuing as vnbeleeuing haue doth wholly depend of the Pope and so farre as concernes temporall execution is deriued from him to them So that he as the Lord of the whole world may giue and take kingdomes and principalities to whom and where he will although no man knowes why he doth so And therefore saith he he might adiudge and bequeath the West Indies of Castile and the East Indies of Portingall although all men vnderstand not the coherence of the reason whereby they were disposed as wee said before And therefore being emboldned with a confidence of maintaining this opinion he doth greeuously accuse many excellent Diuines amongst whom is that worthy man Bellarmine who can neuer woorthily be commended cals them new Diuines affirmeth That they teach matters that be notoriously false and contrarie to all truth because they say that Christ as man was not a temporall king neither had any temporall dominion in earth nor exercised any kingly power for by these assertions the principall foundations of Bozius his dotages are ouerthrowen when as these great Diuines affirme that they are most true and confirmed by the owne testimonie of our Sauiour The Foxes saith he haue holes and the birds of heauen nests but the Sonne of man hath no where to lay his head Where then is his kingdome where is his Temporall dominion who can conceiue and imagine that there is a king or a Lord who hath neither kingdome nor Lordship in the vniuersall world We know that Christ as he is the Sonne of God is King of glorie the King of Kings the Lord of heauen and earth and of all things raigning euerlastingly together with the Father the holy Spirit But what is this to a Temporall kingdome What is this to a crowne and scepter of a temporall Maiestie Certainly I haue perused all that Bozius hath deliuered to this purpose but I haue not found any sound reason for the confirming of his purpose nothing that was not corrupted with the mixture of fallaries and sophistication nothing grounded vpon ancient and approoued authorities nothing but depraued with a glosse of a deuised interpretation Before this time Henricus Segutianus Cardinall of Hostia was intangled with the same errour whose new and strange opinion at that time is thought within a while after to haue inflamed beyond all measure as it were with new firebrands of ambition Boniface the 8. a man exceeding desirous of glorie But the case is at this time very well altered because that opinion of Hostiensis which afterwards the Canonists followed Bozius now embraceth is vpon very grounded reason condemned by certaine Diuines And also for that the Church of God hath at this day such a chiefe Bishop I meane Clement the eight who sheweth himselfe to the world so excellent and admirable not onely in pietie learning but also in humility iustice charitie and other vertues worthy so great a Pastor that we need not feare least such a Bishop should bee so stirred and infected with a vaine opinion which is vnderpropped onely with fooleries and snares of words that hee should challenge to himselfe any thing which of due belonged not vnto him Neither had Bozius offered so rash assertions to so great a Bishop but that impudencie dare doe anything It were time ill spent to touch seuerally vpon all his errors and fopperies Onely least I should seeme for mine owne pleasure onely to haue found fault with the man I will lay before you one instance of his foolish and quirking dealing that the Reader may iudge of the beast by his Loose CHAP. II. FIrst of all we must vnderstand that those two powers whereby the world is kept in order I meane the Ecclesiasticall and the Ciuill are so by the law of God distinguished and separated that although they bee both of God each of them being included in his bounds can not by any right enter vpon the borders of the other and neither haue power ouer the other as S. Bernard truely and sweetly teacheth in his first booke de Consider ad Eugenium and amongst the later Diuines Iohn Driedo And the woorthy Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to the Emperour Constantine an Arrian doth euidently declare the same difference of
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
out of 〈◊〉 his house and the friends of the Emperor to aâ—cend into it CHAP. X. NO◠〈◊〉 to thâ— Bishop Frisingensis a man most 〈…〉 as I said and almost an eye witnesse of these things Hee both in the place produced by vs and also in others bewraieth plainly that he allowed not that decree of the Pope touching the deposing of the Emperour but that he holds it to be new insolent and vniust For first for the noueltie and insolencie of that Act he writeth thus I read and read againe the Actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and doe finde no where that any of them before this was excommunicate or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome And againe in the first booke touching the gestes of Frederike Gregorie the VII saith he who then held the Bishoprike of the Citie of Rome decrees that the Emporour as one forsaken of his friends should be shaken with the sword of Excommunication The noueltie and strangenesse of this action did so much more vehemently affect the Empire already mooued with indignation because before that time neuer any such sentence was knowen to haue been published against the Princes of the Romanes Now he declares the iniustice and iniquitie of the fact in diuers respects First because amongst those euils and mischiefes which did spring out of that decree of the Pope he reckons the mutation and defection both of Pope and King that Pope was set aboue Pope as King aboue King by which wordes he shewes that both of them by a like right or ratherby a like wrong was made that as Pope was set vpon Pope by the Emperour vniustly so also was King vniustly set vpon King by the Pope Then in that he saith Because therefore the kingdome in his Prince c. what doth that imply other then that by reason of the Empire violated in the Prince the Church was violated in the Bishop or else for the kingdome wounded in the Prince the Church was wounded in the Bishop Betweene which seeing he makes no difference of right or wrong and both of them could not be done iustly it followeth that hee thinketh both of them was done vniustly Moreouer hee calleth as well the defection of Rodolphus whom the Pope had created Emperour as the insurrection of Henrie his sonne of the Excommunicate Father I say he calleth them both openly and simply plaine Rebellion which surely he would neuer haue done if hee had beleeued that Henry was lawfully depriued of his Empire for there can bee no rebellion but against a Superiour and therefore it could not be against an Heretike who if he were justly depriued and deposed was no more a Superiour Therefore he thus writeth of Rodolphus And not long after the two foresaid Captaines Guelfe and Rodolphus rebelling against their Prince vpon what occasion it is vncertaine are ioyned with the Saxons And a little after But the Bishop of Rome Gregorie who at this time as it hath beere said stirred vp Princes against the Emperour writ his letters secretly and openly to all that they should create an other Emperour But heere we must know by the way that he saith vpon what occasion it is doubtfull that it is to be vnderstood of a priuate occasion as many are wont to spring betweene a King and his Nobles as in our age betweene Borbonius and king Francis the Guise and Henry Orange and Philip for each of them both Guelfo and Rodolphus pretended a publike occasion that is to say the furious behauiour of Henricus and also for that hee was excommunicate and deposed from his kingdome by the Pope as writeth Albert Schafnaburgensis and so they couered priuate hatred as Rebels vse to doe with a publique pretence But touching the Sonne our Bishop Frisingensis writeth in this manner Afterward againe in the yeere following when the Emperour celebrated the Natiuitie of the Lord at Moguntia Henry his sonne enters into rebellion against his Father in the parts of Noricum by the counsell of Theobald a Marques and Berengarius an Earle vnder the colour of Religion because his Father was excommunicate by the Bishop of Rome and hauing drawen to his partie certaine great Personages out of the East part of France Alemania and Baioaria he enters into Saxonie a country and Nation easily to bee animated against their King Heere let the Reader obserue two things One that this Author a man notable for knowledge and pietie calleth this insurrection of Henry the sonne against Henry the Father a Rebellion the other that both heere and in other places he euer calls Henry the Father King and Emperour although he had been now about fiue and twentie yeeres excommunicate and depriued of his Kingdome by the Popes sentence and first Rodolphus and then 〈◊〉 were set into his place by the Pope and the Rebels whereby he shewes sufficiently that hee thinkes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Kings or to determine of their temporall gouernment and therfore that the Decree of Gregorie was neither iust nor lawfull otherwise neither Henry could haue been called King nor his aduersaties Rebels without iniurie to the Bishop of Rome There is also another place of the same Authors wherin he 〈◊〉 the same more plainly that is that the Pope by that excommunication and abdication hath taken no right of his Kingdome from Henry for after that he had related that 〈◊〉 who was sonne in law to Rodolâ—us whom as hath been said the Pope had created King hauing killed his Father in law and vsurped the Dukedome of Swâ—uia as granted to him by his Father in law and one the other side that Henrie who had been deposed by the Popes sentence had granted the same Dukedome to a certaine Nobleman of Sweuia whose name was Frederike who forced Bertolphus to conditions of peace ad ex 〈…〉 Ducaius he addeth This Berâ—ode although in this businesse he yeeldeth both to the Empire and to Iustice yet he is reported to haue beene a reâ—olute and a valiant man Behold how he vsing no manner of Circuition affirmes that both Empire and Iustice stands on his part against whom the Pope had long before passed the sentence of Dâ—position but not with Rodolphus being called to the Kingdome by the authoritie of the Pope with this Epigraphe now twise related aboue Petra dedit Petro c. Lastly seeing he seriously saith and teacheth That Kings haue none aboue them but God whom they may feare doth he not euen by this conclusion teach vs that the Bishop of Rome hath no temporall authoritie whereby he may dispose in any manner of their kingdomes and gouernments And surely although there were nothing else for which that hainous action of Pope Gregorie might be misliked surely so many lamentable and desastrous euents so many fatall and wofull accidents which springing out of that iurisdiction which was then first vsurped and practised by the Pope against the Emperour afflicted the whole Empire full fiue and
and we confesse it For if one be more â—orthy then another it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy and is â—â—â—strate and suâ—â—â—â—ted to it for they may â—all out to be comprehended â—â— kinds or orderâ— so â—iuers by nature that neither can depend of other or be hâ—ld by any bond of subiection Therefore we grant that a Prâ—â—ce in the case propâ—â—nded ought to change the â—orm of Câ—uill administâ—at 〈…〉 to â—o it by the church or by the hâ—aâ— thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth which is the Pope but oâ—â—lâ—â—â— Spâ—â—â—tuall punishment the horror whereoâ— to a good man 〈◊〉 greeâ—â—ous then all the pu 〈…〉 by the testiâ—oâ—â—e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporall punishment as is 〈…〉 of Kingdome seeing a 〈…〉 poraltiâ—â— Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a 〈…〉 Hence â—â—dorus whose opinion is registred amongst the Canons Whether the peace and diâ—cipline of the Church be increased by faithfull Princes or 〈…〉 of them who hath deliuered and committed the Church to their power CHAP. XV. Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakned by that which hath been said yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse and more at large to explaine my whole meaning touching this point Therefore we must vnderstand that all Kings and Princes christian as they are the children of the Church are subiect to the Ecclesiastike power and that they ought to obey the same so oft as the commandeth spirituall things which vnlesse they shall doe the Church by the power and Iurisdiction which she hath ouer them may inflict spirituall Censures vpon them and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit although she ought not to doe at alwaies as hath been before declared but with that sâ—ord onely not with the visible and temporall sword alâ—â— because 〈◊〉 sword is committed onely to the Ciuil and Secular power Wherefore so oft as the spirituall power standeth in need of the assistance of the temporall sword she is accustomed to intreat the fauour and friendship of the Ciuill power her friend and companion Contrariwise that Ecclesiastike Princes and Prelates are subiect to ciuill Princes in temporalities and ought to obey them in all things which belong to their ciuill gouernment in no other manner then the Ciuill are bound to obey them commanding spirituall things so as they bee such as repugne neither the Catholike faith nor good manners Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason but because that by the bountie of Kings he hath been made a King himselfe I meane a ciuill Prince acknowledging no man for his superiour in temporalties and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Iurisdiction confesse whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer ad precipua capita Apologiae c. That opinion saith he is generall and most true that all men ought altogether to obey the superiour power But because power is twofold spirituall and temporall Ecclesiastike and Politike of which one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings the Bishops must bee subiect to the Kings in temporall matters and the Kings to the Bishops in spirituall as Gelasius the first in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael And because the Bishop of Rome is not onely a chiefe Prince Ecclesiastike to whom all Christians are subiect by the law of God but is also in his Prouinces a Prince temporall nor acknowledgeth any superiour in temporalties no more than other absolute and soueraigne Princes doe in their kingdomes and iurisdictions hence it commeth to passe that in earth he hath no power ouer him Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection but because he possesseth a temporall principality which is subiect to none Therefore in those matters which belong to the safety of the common wealth and to ciuill society and are not against the diuine ordinance the Cleargie is no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne Prince temporall then other Citizens are as Bellarmine himselfe declareth excellently well adding also a reason secondly for that Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men they are also Citizens and certaine ciuill parts of the common wealth Cleargie men saith he are not any way exempted from the obligation of ciuill lawes which do not repugne the sacred Canons or the clericall dutie And although he saith that he speakes not of coactiue obligation yet is it more true that they may be constrained by a temporall iudge to the obedience of the lawes where the cause doth require that in that case they should not enioy the benefit of their exemption which it is certaine enough that they receiued from the lawes of Emperors and Princes For in vaine doth he challenge the benefit of lawes who offends against them Hence it is I meane out of this society and fellowship of clerkes and laikes in the common weale that in publike assemblies the Cleargie if they be to consult of temporall affaires doe fit in the next place to the Prince Therefore spirituall power by the word of power it is vsuall to signifie the persons indued with power doth both command and obey politike power and the politike her againe And this is that indeed whereof B. Gregorie the Pope admonisheth Maurice the Emperor let not our Lord saith he out of his carthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests but out of his excellent iudgement euen for his sake whose seruants they are let him so rule ouer them as that also he yeeld them due reference That is to say let him rule ouer them so far forth as they are Citizens and parts of the common wealth yeeld reuerence as they are the Priests of God and spirituall fathers to whom the Emperor himselfe as a child of the Church is in subiection And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers is by a singular president declared of Salomon who feared not to pronounce Abiathar the high Priest guilty of death because he had a hand in the treason of Adoniah For the story saith The King also said to Abiathar the Priest Goe thy waies to Auathoth to thy house and surely thou shalt die but to day I will not slay thee because thou hast caried the Arke of the Lord before Dauid my father and hast endured trouble in all those things wherein my father was troubled Therefore Salomon dismissed Abiathar that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Salomon shewes that in a ciuill and temporall businesse he had authority ouer the Priests whereas notwithstanding it is euident that in the old law the Priests were ouer the Kings and vsed to command and also to withstand them in all things
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
list the Annals and Records of all Nations let him read through all Scriptures and Stories he shall finde amongst them no one step whereby it may be gathered that those christian Princes when they gaue their names to the Church did submit their Scepters to the Pope and did specially and by name a bandon their soueraigne temporall Magistracie But it must appeare that Princes wittingly and knowingly did descend and giue themselues into the dition and authoritie temporall of the Pope or we must confesse that as much as concerned regall dignitie they remained after Baptisme in the same power and condition wherein they were before they receiued holy imitation of Christianitie for as he witnesseth himselfe the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and peculiar fee. But before they gaue their name to Christ of right and in fact as he saith they exercised ciuill authoritie ouer the Pope and might lawfully iudge him in temporall Cases therefore they might likewise doe it lawfully after Baptisme Which if it be so it cannot be by any meanes that they should be iudged by him in temporall matters seeing it is impossible that any man should bee superiour and inferiour in the same kind of authoritie and in respect of one and the same thing It is true that those christian Princes for the reuerence they bare not onely to the Pope but also to all other Bishops yea and Priests also did very seldome put that iudgement in practise But this argues a want of will onely and not of power also Wherefore as a Consul or President when he yeelds himselfe to adoption transferres none of those rights which belong to him by his office into the familie and power of his adoptiue father neither can transferre them but reserues them all entirely to himselfe so Princes in the beginning hauing deliuered themselues into the spirituall adoption of the ecclesiastike Hierarchie could by that act loose none of those things which belonged to the right of a kingdome and their publike ciuill estate for that the nature of these powers is deuided so as although being yoaked and coupled together they did very htlv and handsomely frame together in the same christian Common-wealth yet neither of them as it is such is subiect or master to the other and neither doth necessarilie follow and accompanie the other but each may be both obtained and also lost or kept without the other But now because the learned Bellarmine is very much delighted with similitudes and besides prooues thi common opinion de indirect a potestate temporals summ◠Pontificis by no testimonie either of Scriptures or of ancient Fathers but onely by certaine reasons fetched a simili a very poore and weake foundation to build a demonstration vpon I thinke I shall not doe amisse by a similitude of much more fitnesse to confirme also our opinion of this matter The sonne of the familie although he goe to warres and beare publike office and charge is by the law of God and man subiect to his Father in whose sacred houshold power he is yet abiding And againe the father who hath this power ouer his sonne is subiect to his sonne as a magistrate but 〈◊〉 another kind of power For the one as he is a Parent challengeth authority ouer his sonne whereby he may correct chastise and punish him offending and committing any thing against the lawes of the family or practising any thing against himselfe or otherwise doing that which is vnworthy and vnfitting a good sonne not by the right of a Magistrate but by the authority of his fatherly power and not with euery kind of punishment but only with certaine which are allowed by the law Therefore if his sonne deserue ill he may disherit him cast him out of the house depriue him of the right of the family and kindred and chastise him with other domesticall remedies But he can not disanull his Magistracy nor take from him his goods in the campe nor condemne him by a publike iudgement neither inflict any other mulct or paine due for his fault by the law either directly or indirectly because this course exceedeth the measure and iurisdiction of a fatherly power But the other although a sonne and obliged by the fathers bond yet as he is a Magistrate in publike authority ruleth ouer his father and in publike affaires and euen in priuate so be it they be not domesticall may command him as well as other Citizens If there be a sonne of a family saith Vlpian and beare an office he may constraine his father in whose power he is suspectum dicentem haereditatem adire restituers From hence if the sonne of the family be Consul or President he may either be emancipated or giuen into adoption before himselfe For which cause the father is no lesse bound then if he were a stranger not only to obey his sonne being in office but also to rise to him and to honor him with all the respect and honor which belongeth to the Magistrate In the very same manner the Pope who is the spirituall father of all Christians by his fatherly Ecclesiastike power as the Vicar of Christ doth command Kings and Princes as well as the rest of the faithfull and in that respect if Kings commit any thing against God or the Church he may sharply chastise them with spirituall punishments cast them out of the house and family of God and disinherit them of the kingdome of heauen most fearefull and terrible punishments for christian hearts to thinke on because all these things are proper to his fatherly power spirituall But neither can he take from them temporall principality and domination nor inflict ciuill punishments vpon them because he hath obtained no ciuill and temporall iurisdiction ouer them by which such manner of chastisement ought to be exercised as also for that the fatherly power spirituall wherewith the Pope is furnished is very far diuided from the ciuill and temporall in ends offices and euen in persons also For God as he hath committed spirituall power to the Pope and the other Priests so also hath he giuen the ciuill by an euerlasting 〈◊〉 tion to the King and the Magistrates which be vnder him There is no power but of God To this place belongs that ancient glosse which the Cardinall of Cusa writes that it was assured to the Canon Hadrianus Papa 63. in which Canon it is deliuered that the Pope with the whole Synod granted to Charles the great the honor of the Patriciate For the glosse said that a Patrician was a father to the Pope in temporalities as the Pope was his father in spiritualities And the same Cardinall in the same booke speaking of the electers of the Germane Emperors from whence the electors saith he who in the time of Henry the second were appointed by the common consent of all the Almans and others who were subiect to the Empire haue a radicall power from that common consent
Emperour although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith yet was ordained of God and was inferour to God alone Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection not because they could not but because they lawfully might not Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only and the lesse could not depose the greater how could the Christian subiects depose him What doth either the Apostle fight with himselfe or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another Or euen those ancient fathers who succeeded the Apostles were they ignorant of their whole â—â—gâ—t and â—â—â—ledge against Iâ—nded or Heretâ—kâ— Kings and Mâ—gâ—â—traâ—â—â— For that they had force and strength equall 〈◊〉 and more then fuilâ—â—t to eâ—ecute an exploâ—t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very largely Thereâ—ore it is â—â—â—dent by these that the authoritie of the Apostle Paâ—â— doth nothing appâ—â—taâ—â— to the former proposition of Bellarâ—â—â—e touching the deposing of Kings and therefore that hee committed a great error that in a matter so serious and of so great moment hee hath deâ—â—ded the Reader with a false shadoâ— of the Apostle authoritie If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apoâ—â—lâ—â— direction had taken aâ—aâ— the authoritie poâ—er and â—â—nstâ—â—tion of the msidell Iudges or in aâ—â— paâ—â—hadal â—â—gaâ—â—d the same or had exempted Christians from their subieâ—â—â—n there could nothing haue been stronger thâ—â— â—â—â—â—unes argument nothing more trâ—â—â— thâ—n â—â—s opâ—â—â— But because that constitution of Iudgeâ— dâ—â— no more prâ—iâ—dice â—eathâ—â— Iâ—â—â—â—diction theâ— the châ—sing of Peâ—â—e Kings at â—â—â—uetide or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the â—antoâ— youth in the 〈…〉 is prâ—iudâ—câ—all to the true Kings and Magistrateâ— it iâ— certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be draâ—â—â— from thence But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question I must adâ—â—â—â—tise you that S. Thomas is in some places of that opinion that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethnâ—ke Princes may iustly be taken away by the â—â—â—tence or ordination of the Church hauing the authoritie of God as he saith S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me but not so great as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canonâ—call Scripture or that it should ouercome either reason or law Whose ghost I honour and admire his doctrine But yet there is no reason why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie for his opinion and also because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie And the reason which he brings because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull who are translated into the sonnes of God An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man as though if any man deserue to be depriued of oâ—ce benefice dignitie authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth may therefore presently be spoiled by another rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same or by another that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him Who knoweth not that the Chancellor Constable and other officers made by the King doe deserue to loose their place if in any thing they abuse their office but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them so long aâ— the Prince on whom onely they doe depend â—uâ—ereth them to execute their once In like manner infidell Princes although by the desert of 〈◊〉 â—â—fidelitie they deserue to 〈◊〉 their authoritie yet because they are constituted by God and are inferiour to him alone they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie and deposed but by God himselfe And indeed the same Thomas in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul aboue recited in this Chapter sheweth plainly enough that the Church hath not that authoritie whereby shee may depose â—thinkes for he saith it is against the law of God to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes Now it is sure that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God further to take from infidell Princes the right of Lordship and Dignitie is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement Therefore the Church hath not that power And let any man who will peruse all Stories he shall finde no where that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie to iudge Princes infidell or heathen Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall as Thomas thinketh in that place but for want of rightfull power because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull according to that of the Apostle What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without and also because Princes appointed by God haue God onely Iudge ouer them by whom only they may be deposed Neither is it to the matter that Paul when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels addeth that only Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed for he said not that as though for that cause onely seruants should obey their Masters but that especially for that cause they should doe it and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe which could arise thereof that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters to wit the publike scandall of the whole Church of God and of Christian doctrine Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will if they might doe it without scandall to the Church for they should not commit flat theft in their owne persons by the law of Nations But he would shew that they did not onely sinne which in other places he plainly teacheth but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault and aboue all things to be auoided Therefore now it remaineth that according to my promise I make proofe that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes is false euen out of the Prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 and granted by himselfe The matter is plaine and easie to be done for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes in all Ciuill causes as other men his words are these I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because indeed hee was his Iudge although not of right for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere lib. 2. cap. 96.
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
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
manner of men which might be a scandall to the Laitie as are the faults which are committed of humaine frailety that the same might with more secresie and closenes be amended before their proper Ordinaries nor should not come to the eares of the rude and barbarous multitude which oft times measureth the doctrine by the manners and is accustomed either to disdaine or to scorne and laugh at these maner of slippes in the Clergy And moreouer lest the Cleriques who ought to bee carefull and diligent to maintaine peace and concord and both in word and deede to giue example of charity and patience should seeme by their often haunting and frequenting of secular Courts to shew the way to all manner of strifes and contention Then by these decrees of Councelles there is nothing detracted from the authoritie of the Laickes but that they may heare the causes of the Clergie men For the Fathers did not neither indeed could they forbid that secular Iudges should not iudge and determine of Clergie mens causes being brought before them for that had beene to take from Princes and Magistrates that right and authoritie which the law of Christ doth not permit them to doe but indeed they did forbidde that one Clergy person should not draw an other before those kind of Iudges appointing canonicall or ecclesiasticall punishments against them which did not obey Now this they might appoint iustly and lawfully without wrong or preiudice to any euen as a good Father that hath many children may commaund his children and also forbid them vnder a priuate and domesticke punishment that they doe not contēd before a Iudge about any controuersies amongst themselues but that they cease and lay downe all quarrell and differences vpon the iudgment of their father or brethren and by giuing his children this charge he doth not preiudice at all the authority of lawfull Iudges Euen so the Fathers of the councels haue inhibited their sonnes that is the Clergy men that they should maintaine no action nor question amongst them selues before secular Iudges not by taking away from the Laiques their power to heare and decide of their causes but by abridging the Clergie of their ancient liberty of going so freely vnto them as they vsed to do And this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authority and iurisdiction of temporall Magistrates but only to take a course by which the Clergie hauing businesse with the Clergy may easily attaine their right without so much noise and stirrings in Lay-mens courtes And lest any man should doubt whether these things stand thus or no I thought it worth my pains to set down the very decrees of the Counsels from which because they were not well vnderstoode this errour hath sprung that from thence the Reader may vnderstand the truth of our discourse The first then which decreed any thing touching this point was the 3. councell of Carthage held the yeare of our Lord 397. at which S. Augustine was present and subscribed the same In the 9. can of that councell it is thus written Also wee haue ordained that whosoeuer Bishop Priest and Deacon or Clerke when as a crime is charged vpon him in the Church or a Ciuill controuersie shall bee raised against him if he leauing the Ecclesiastick iudgement shall desire to be cleared by the publique iudgements although the sentence passe of his side that hee shall lose his place and this in a criminall iudgement But in a Ciuill that he foresee that which hee hath wonne if he desire to hold his place still For hee that hath free liberty to chuse his Iudges where hee will hee doth shew himselfe to be vnworthy of the fellowshippe of his brethren who conceiuing meanely of the whole Church sueth to the secular iudgement for helpe Whereas the Apostle commaundeth that the causes of priuate Christians should bee brought to the Church and be there determined Is there any word here whereby it may be gathered by any probable reason that the Councell meant to exempt the Clergie from the iurisdiction of secular Magistrates or doth declare that the Laickes are not competent Iudges for the Clergie Nay it sheweth the direct contrarie viz. that they doe confesse that the secular Iudges may by good right heare and decide the causes of Clergie persons and that they doe not disallow their iudgements as giuen by an incompetent Iudge but that they only endeuour this to restraine the giddinesse and forwardnesse of those Clerickes that when as a cause hath alreadie beene begun to bee debated in the Church forsaking and contemning the Ecclesiasticke Iudges doe submit themselues to the order and iudgement of Laickes in which case the Councell doth not disallow the sentence giuen by a secular Iudge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Iudge but a penaltie depriueth that Clerke of the fruit and benefite of such a sentence by reason of his lewdnesse and disorder Now in that the Fathers of that Councell did at that time acknowledge the Ciuill Magistrates to bee the competent Iudges of Clergy men by that it may bee vnderstood sufficiently that they restrained this their decree to that case wherein a crime is raised vpon a Clearke in the church or a ciuill controuersie set on foot against him Therfore out of these cases it was by this Canon lawfull for the Clergie without offence to prosecute their sutes in a ciuill court and to debate their businesse before a secular Iudge After followed the famous Councell of Chalcedon Ann. Dom 451. which also in the 9. Canon decreeth on this manner If any Clergy person haue businesse with a Clergie person let him not forsake his proper Bishop and runne to temporall iudgements but first let the businesse be sifted by the pr per Bishop or at least by the counsell of the same Bishop they shall receiue iudgement and order from them by whom both parties were content to be iudged If any shall doe otherwise he shall be subiect to the Canonicall consures Obserue how this Councell directeth her speech to the Clergie that they should not leaue their owne Bishops to goe to secular Iudges but not to temporall Magistrates and Iudges that they should not heare Clergie men comming to them and after the cause debated should pronounce sentence according to the course of law compell them to performe the iudgement Therefore by this Canon there is nothing taken from the authoritie of the Laitie For those words of the Canon or Decree Sedprius actio ventiletur apud proprium Fpiscopum doe sufficiently shew that the Fathers of the Councell doe only require that all the causes of Clergie men bee at the first hand examined by the Bishop secondly if there bee cause that they bee carried to the examination of the temporall Iudge For it is not likely or credibl that that word Primum was idly and super fluously set downe by so many worthy and wise men and so that Canon doth wholly accord with the Nouell Constitution of
Iustinian 82. made in fauour of the Clergie men That Clergie men should first bee conuented before their owne Bishops and afterwards before Ciuill Iudges Therefore the Ciuill Iurisdiction of secular Iudges ouer the Clergie is not weakened by this Canon but rather confirmed Likewise in the Councell of Agatha vnder King Alaricke Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same decreed Can. 32 That no Clergie man should presume to molest any man before a secular Iudge if the Bishop did not giue him licence The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decreâ—um not without very foule dealing both changing the reading and wresting the sense for whereas the Councell had said Clericus ne quenquam praesumat c. that he hath drawne to his owne opinion depraued in this manner Clericum nullus praesumat apud sâ—cularem Iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare that is Let no man presume to molest a Clergie man before a Secular Iudge c. That the prohibition may include the Laâ—cks also that they should not conuent a Clergy man before a Secular Iudge whereas it is made only for Clergie men without any mention at all of the Laitie Besides the second part of that Canon doth manifestly shew that the Councell is thus farre offended with the Laickes which draw the Clergie before Secular Iudgements and propoundeth Ecclesiasticall punishments against them if so bee they shall doe it wrongfully of a purpose to vex and molest them For it followeth in the same Canon But if any Secular man shall attempt wrongfully to torment and vex the Church and Clergie men by moouing of sutes before Secular Iudges and shall be conuicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church and from the Communion of the Catholikes vnlesse hee shall worthily repent but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Councell but also of the Epistle of Pope Marcellinus in eadem Cauâ— quaest Can 3. and for Clericus nullum hath written Clericus nullus that it is no maruell that the Canonists who did only reade the gatherings of Gratianus being deceiued by this false reading haue fallen into this errour which we now repichend But it is a maruell that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus and not rather the true and naturall section of the Authors themselues in his Controucisies Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 28. But in the first Councell of Matiscum which was held vnder King Guâ—tramnus An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner That no Clericke presume in what place soeuer to accuse any other brother of the Clergie or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular Iudge but let all matters of the Clergie be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop or Priest or Arch deacon And in the third Councell of Toletum which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the raigne of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus The continuall misgouernment and accustomed presumption of libertie hath so farre opened the way to vnlawfull attempts that Clerickes leauing their Bishops doe draw their fellow Clerkes to publike iudgements Therefore wee ordaine that the like presumption be attempted no more If any shall presume to doe it let him lose his cause and be banished from the Communion These are the solemne and almost the sole decrees of the Canons whereon they ground their errour who falsely supposed that Councels could or in fact did exempt the Clergie from the power of the Laitie whom the Canons themselues notwithstanding doe so euidentlie conuince that wee neede not bring any thing else besides them for to represse that conceit of theirs And these matters haue beene thus discoursed by mee not with that minde and intent to rippe vp the priuileges of the Clergie or because I either enuie that they enioy them or wish that they were taken from them They who know mee know very well in what account I haue euer had and haue Ecclesiasticall persons I doe honour the Priests of God as my parents and esteeme them worthy all honour but as an humble childe I aduise them that they be not vnthankfull nor disdaine their benefactors from whom they haue receiued so many priuileges They are bound to reuerence and honour their temporall Princes as their Patrons and Protectors and procurers of their libertie and not as many of them at this day vse to denie that they are beholding to Princes for those fauours but to ascribe all their liberties and exemptions and immunities to Pontificiall and Canonicall Constitutions which is the most vnthankfull part which can proceede from vnthankfull mindes For what temporall libertie soeuer they haue they haue receiued the same not from the Popes but from secular Princes nor from the Canons but from the Lawes CHAP. XXXIII I Will say more and I will speake the truth although peraduenture it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seeme hatefull which are neuer so little against their humour and disposition Therefore I will speake and I will speake a great word which peraduenture either no man hitherto hath remembred or if any haue hee hath not at the least put any in minde as hee ought whom it concerned to know the same And that is that the Clergie thorow the whole world of what order or degree soeuer they be are not to this day in any manner exempt and freede from the temporall authoritie of secular Princes in whose Kingdomes and countries they liue but are subiect to them in no other manner then other Citizens in all things which belong to ciuill and temporall administration and iurisdiction and that the same Princes haue power of life and death ouer them as well as ouer their other subiects and therefore that the Prince I speake of him who acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall affaires may either of his clemencie forgiue or punish according to the Law a Clergie man committing any fault whatsoeuer so the fault bee not meerely Ecclesiasticall This although it seeme hard and halfe a paradoxe to them who being possessed with the errour of the contrarie opinion doe thinke that they liue within the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Pope only and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of humane lawes besides notwithstanding I shall bring to passe in few words that they may plainly vnderstand that there is nothing more true then this proposition of mine so as they be onely willing to open their eares to â—eare the true reason thereof with indifferencie The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we haue set downe and prooued before out of the iudgement of the Diuines of the best note and shall presently bee demonstrated by necessary and euident conclusion drawne from thence First of all therefore this is set downe and granted and also confirmed with most firme reasons and testmonies that all both Clerickes and Laickes were in the power and authoritie of Kings and Emperours so
No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours as concerning temporall matters Ergo hee had no temporall authority ouer them that hee might iudge them in temporalties The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour a superiour I meane in that very point whereof the iudgement is made For as we haue often said Par in parem non habet imperium And in nature it cannot be that one and the same person should be both inferiour superiour in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same matter no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries when as they affirme and clearely confirme by reasons That the exception vnlesse you wil say exemption of Cleriques in ciuill causes aswell concerning their persons as Gods was brought or by the law of man For as Augustine witnesseth humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes as we shewed in the last Chapter before And that euen of their meere and free bounty for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church to grant the Clergy those priuiledges seeing it is not found to be expressed prouided by no law of God And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right interest as thēselus confesse we haue often signified And therfore as their owne learning carieth Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties By all this discourse it followeth that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges of exemptions and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope and other Clergie persons Therefore that which might be done let vs suppose it was done that is that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie or priuiledge doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince as his fellow Bishops and Brethren in France Spaine and Britanie and in other kingdomes doe Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties to whome hee is temporally subiect Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours then he had before through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties But if any bee so fond perhaps to say that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church viz. to iudge and depose euill princes but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered that he could not exercise it so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties But now after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes made himselfe a temporall princes there is nothing to hinder but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation I must answere him nothing else but that the things he speaketh are not onely false but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnpossible setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse and which is most true that is to say that the Popes before such time as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction were subiect to them both de iure and de facto For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power for that it is not competent but by right of superiority Now it implieth a contradiction that the Pope was by right superiour and by right inferiour at the same time in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature and the most holy rule of life they must needes bee in a great error who affirme that this soueraigne authority wherof we speake was by Christ conferred on Peter and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons and full weake patched vp together of similitudes comparisons allegories and such like stuffe as you may see by that which wee haue refuted All which are to be reiected and little esteemed when as by the position and granting of them some absurditie doth follow as in this point or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines The third argument saith he is this A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe as is conuenient for them Ergo the Pope may and ought command Christians those things and inforce them to these things to which euery one of them in his condition is bound that is constraine euery one to serue God in that manner wherein they ought according to their state and condition But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it and vnlesse they doe it to enforce them by excommunication and other conuenient meanes Surely I see not what is contained in this argument which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode Now the Popes reuenewes although they be great would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion for hee saith to enforce by Excommunication and other conuenient meanes meaning Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke not a temporall Shepheard but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
of the old Law to the obseruation of the new But if the aduersaries out of all the figures of the old Law can shape any one like to this for the strengthening of their opinion they shall haue my voice for the bell surely they shall neuer finde mee against them Therefore now let vs see the second example CHAP. XXXVIII THe second saith he is out of 2. Paralip 23. whereas when Athalia had â—yrannously vsurped the Kingdome and maintained the worship of Baal Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and the Souldiers and commanded them to kill Athalia and in her place did chuse Ioas King Now that the high Priest did not counsell but command it appeareth by those words 4 Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all which Ioiada the Priest commanded them also by these words 2. Paralip 23. But Ioiada the oigh Priest going out to the Centurions and Captaines of the Army said vnto them Bring her out meaning Athalia the Queene without the doores of the Temple and let her be slaine without by the sword And that the cause of this deposition and execution of Athalia was not only her tyrannie but also for that she maintained the worship of Baal is plaine out of those words which follow immediately after her death Therefore saith the Scripture all the people went into the house of Baal and destroied it and brake down the Altars and Images thereof They slew also Mathan the Priest of Baal Surely I doe not know what mooued Bellarmine to thrust vpon vs this example so remote and farre off from the matter and controuersie vnlesse because hee had obserued that it was propounded by others before him fearing peraduenture lest if he had omitted it hee should be accused by some emulous aduersaries of negligence and preuarication to Pope Sixtus V. who being beyond all measure imperious and haughty and not greatly fauouring the societie of the Iesuites determined to reduce that whole Order to a straighter rule and habit of life which should bee distinguished from the Secular Priests in colour forme or some other outward marke Therefore I doe muse with my selfe how they obtained of him that Bull that they might occupie the perpetuall Dictature of the Vniuersitie of Pontimussa that is that they should for euer bee Rectors or Presidents against the forme and statutes of that foundation made by Gregorie the XIII There be that thinke that the Bull was supposititious that is deuised and counterfait Surely although it were true and granted by Sixtus yet it ought not to bee of force because it was obtained presently after his creation at which time whatsoeuer the Popes doe grant is iudged not so much to be obtained of them as to be extorted from them But to the matter That the example touching Ioiada and Athalia belong nothing to this disputation it appeareth by this that all our controuersie standeth in this Whether the Pope bee endued with so great authority ouer lawfull Kings and Princes Secular that hee may for certaine causes cast them downe from their Throne and depriue them of the right of their Kingdome and anoint and inaugurate others in their places But the example of Athalia is of a woman which held the Kingdome by no right but by most cruell and sauage tyrannie by force and villanie and by the bloudy murder of the Kings house who stood therefore in that case that shee might iustly be slaine of any priuate person without the commandement of the Priest Ioiada But for that such a matter seemed dangerous to attempt and hard to compasse against her who was mother to Ochozias the King deceased therefore there was great neede of the counsell and helpe of Ioiada the high Priest or surely of some other who likewise either by the greatnesse of his authoritie or the opinion of holinesse might assemble and euen stirre vp the Souldiers and the people to vndertake so noble and worthy an action And that this was done not so much by the commandement as aduice of Ioiada it is plaine by that which is said Ioiada the high Priest sent and taking to him the Centurions and Souldiers caused them to bee brought into him into the Temple of the Lord and hee strooke a Couenant with them And that the Interpreters doe note in that place but the words iubere or praecipere are wont to be spoken of euery man who hath the chiefe place in a Faction or Societie Therefore there is nothing found in this example which hath any the least similitude or agreement with the assertion which is vndertaken by the aduersaries to prooue The assertion is that lawfull Princes that is to say they who obtaine Kingdomes and Principalities by right either of Election or Succession may for certaine causes be deposed from their gouernement by the Pope And then what doth it helpe for the proofe of this proposition to propound an example of a Tyrant or the killing of a Tyrant Doe they thinke that there is no difference betweene the true Lords and lawfull possessors and the spoilers and inuaders of possessions which belong not to them Now whether there were or no any other cause or reason to depose and slay her besides her tyrannie it maketh no matter it is sufficient that she was a Tyrant and a violent vsurper of the Kingdome insomuch as there was of her part no hindrance nor barre in Law but that she might be cast headlong out of the seat and bee slaine by any of the people Which cannot in like manner be said of a lawfull King whose person although it be wicked the Law of a kingdome and the authoritie of rule ought alwaies to protect and defend from all iniurie and humane punishment as wee haue prooued otherwhere out of the writings of the holy Fathers Now the third followeth CHAP. XXXIX THe third example saith hee is of S Ambrose who being Bishop of Millan and by that the spirituall Pastor and Father of Theodosius the Emperour who ordinarily did reside at Millan did first excommunicate him for the slaughter which by his commandement was done at Thessalonica secondly hee enioined him to make a Law that the sentence giuen of the slaughter and of the publication of goods of them who were slaine should not stand good till after thirty daies from the pronouncing of the sentence to the end that if hee had through anger and precipitation of minde commanded any thing hee might reuoke it within the space of so many daies But Ambrose could not excommunicate Theodosius for that slaughter vnlesse hee had first vnderstood and iudged of that cause although it were Criminall and belonged to an externall Court but hee could not vnderstand and iudge a cause of that nature vnlesse also he had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall Court. Besides to constraine the Emperour to make a ciuill Law and to prescribe vnto him a forme of a Law doth it not manifestly declare that a Bishop sometimes doth