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
ministerie likewise of the Pope whereof the former from the Synagogue to the Church although it may be rightly concluded in forme as they say yet it commeth short for the purpose because it offendeth in matter because the Synagogue hath neuer had any temporall power ouer Kings And the latter is not of force but in that case that the same may befall to the Pope now which befell to Samuel in those times viz. that as the Lord spake to Samuel touching Saul so he should speake to the Pope by name about the abdication of some certaine King and of substituting an other in his place For in this case it cannot bee denied but that the authoritie of the Pope is equall to Samuels and his Ministerie alike in executing the Commandement of God But if not I meane if the Lord hath not expresly spoken to the Pope in his eare I pray you how can it be that when he desires by his owne proper authoritie to thrust any King out of his Throne that he should maintaine that hee doth it by the example of Samuel whom God did delegate by a speciall charge and an extraordinarie mission to signifie his decree touching the abdication of Saul Samuel knew certainely that God had reiected Saul and all his race that they should not raigne for the Lord told him so much But the Pope knowes not whether God haue reiected that Prince whom he desires to depose vnlesse God hath specially reuealed it to him Seeing there is nothing more certaine by the Scriptures then that God doth for diuers causes tolerate wicked Kings and contemners of his word and doth cause them to raigne for the time whom when it pleaseth him he either conuerteth to him or euerteth and ouerthroweth And it happeneth often that they whom the Pope who iudgeth according to outward appearance pronounceth vnworthie to raigne by their present conditions and state of life those the Lord to whom all things are present declareth to be most worthie to raigne their mindes being conuerted to holinesse and grace whereof not â—ong agone we haue seen a memorable example now in our age For who knoweth not I speake it to the honour and glorie of this great King that HENRY the IV. who now most happily gouerneth the sterne of the Kingdome of France and I pray God he may gouerne long was not onely excommunicate by Gregorie and Sixtus Popes but also was so reiected and abandoned and depriued of all right of Kingdome that by their censures they declared him vncapable of any kingdome or gouernment whatsoeuer whose iudgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorne and demonstrated that the King which was reproued by them was most worthie of a worthie Kingdome Seeing then these things stand thus and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God how can the Pope know and vnderstand the pleasure and will of God vnlesse like vnto Samuel he be aduertised before Therefore that which Sanders saith That King who shall refuse to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope c. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to excute those things which the Lord shall command him by speciall reuelation For otherwise what shall we say Philip the Faire did he therefore disdaine to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope because he would not heare Boniface swelling with a most proud ambition that it should bee thought that he might bee by Boniface depriued of the right of his crowne and an other to bee substituted in his place What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not heare Iulius the II. being complete armed and playing the souldier rather then the Pope did hee seeme to haue contemned God speaking by the mouth of the Pope so farre is both he and his fauoureâ—s should deserue to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdomes at the pleasure of man that boiled inwardlie with a priuate hatred against him To belieue such matters good Lord should I tearme it ignorance or madnesse But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by vs. His second argument to confesse plainely the weaknesse of my witte I doe not well vnderstand to what purpose it aimeth For that it may haue some strength and force to proue the point which is in hand and to bee consequent and agreable to that which is concluded we must of force admit two most false suppositions as true and necessary Whereof one is That they who either did foretell any thing that should come to passe by reuelation from God or by his commaundement willed any thing to bee done might by their own right I meane by their proper authority and ordinary vertue of then office without any speciall reuelation or commaundement from God commaunde the same whatsoeuer it was to be done or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselues As though Ahias the Silonite whome God had sent to Ieroboam with a speciall charge that hee should tell him that he will giue him ten Tribes out of the Kingdome of Salomon in these words Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel Behold I will rent the Kingdome out of the hand of Salomon and will giue theeten Tribes As though I say Ahias without any such expresse commaundement of God without any speciall reuelation might haue called Ieroboam or any other into Salomons Kingdome or into part thereof Then which nothing can bee said more falsly or foolishly And the other supposition is that all Priests and Prophets of the old law had authority to bestow to take away kingdoms so farre forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people which also is most false neither is there to bee found in all the scriptures any example or steppe or taken of the same Seeing then the whole force of this second argument is so grounded on these two false suppositions that it cannot bee rightly concluded except they be granted that it is euident enough that there is no firme consequence ápotestate delegatia Principe ad potestatem ordi 〈◊〉 that is from the authority of a Committee from a Prince to the authority of an ordinary officer who doth not see by his owne iudgement without much Logicke that all this busines which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias is as farre as may be from that which he hath vndertaken to proue The third argument also is euen of the same stuffe for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias for the speciall execution of certaine busines to the ordinary office of the Pope or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be Elias at the Lords commaundement by name for that Sanders omitted which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame annointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Eliseus a Prophet for him Ergo the Pope may take away and giue kingdoms and principalities as hee shall thinke good For
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
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
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
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
aspireth to eternall happinesse it hath not that of hir selfe not I say so farre as it is Politike doth shee direct hir indeuours thither as to hir last scope but in respect that shee is spirituall or else is furthered by the societie and Counsels of the Ecclesiastike power As appeareth by innumerable both peoples and Cities in whom the Ciuill power was strong and powerfull by seuerity of lawes although they had very slender or no notion at all of this euerlasting happinesse whereof we speake This also the Apostle declares when he willes vs to pray for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may liue a peaceable life in all pietie and chastitie ascribing peace and tranquillitie of life to the Politike gouernment but pietie and chastitie to Christian discipline Therefore to speake in one word we must know that the ends of humane actions are in the intention and not in the vnderstanding that is to say not that which the vnderstanding can inuent by discourse of reason is the end of the Action but that which the will doth desire to attaine by doing while the minde meditates on the Action that is the end of Action Whence Nauarrus saith very well That the end of the Laike power is the good happie and quiet temporall life of men which also is the end of the lawes which proceeded from the same And that the end of the Ecclesiastike power is an euerlasting supernaturall life and that the same is the end of the lawes which proceed from her I would prosecute this further but that I thinke that the matter is plaine enough to men of wit euen by Philosophie it selfe But the second reason is so friuolous and captious as nothing can be spoken more fondly or be gathered more vnsoundly for is there any old wife so doting as vnderstands not the weaknesse of this consequution They are members of one bodie therefore one depends of another For neither doth a foote depend of a foote nor an arme of an arme nor a shoulder of a shoulder but they are ioined to some third and middle member by themselues or by other members to which they adheare And is it not gathered by the same manner of reasoning and by the same argument plainly The armes of euery man be members of one bodie But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one â—â— another but it is not rightly affirmed That the right depends of the left Ergo The left arme of euery man depends of the right and is subiect to it Who would not laugh at such kind of Arguments so full of vanitie I hate those miserable demonstrations which doe rather inwrap and infold the matter they haue in hand with quâ—â—ckes illusions and captious sophistications then explane the same for as the armes are knit to the shoulders and the shoulders are knit to the necke and head nor the right arme or the right shoulder is subiect to the left or contrarily so the power spirituall and temporall or Ecclesiastike and Politike although they be members of one Politike bodie and parts of one Christian common-weale and Church yet neither is subiect to the other and neither can without great sinne presse and encroach vpon the borders and Iurisdiction of the other but both as it were the shoulders of one bodie are knit to the head which is Christ. Whereof this I meane the Politike prescribeth to the Citizens and Subiects the preceptes of liuing wherein the peace and tranquillity of humane societie is maintained and the other raiseth and instructeth mens mindes to the supernaturall contemplation of immortality and eternall happinesse which doth subsist with Ciuill tranquillity and sometimes without it whereof it followes that these powers are diuided and seuered in the same Christian Common-weale so as neither can be subiect to other so faire foorth as it is such And surely vnlesse Bellarmine confesse this he will be conuinced by his owne doctrine deliuered other where for in his third booke De Rom. Pontif. c. 19. where he consutes the trifles of the Smalchaldike Synod of the Lutherans and answers to that argument of theirs wherein they say That the Pope makes himselfe God seeing he will not be in aged by the Church nor by any man he shewes that the consequence is saulty in an argument drawen from Kings who also themselues haue no Iudge in earth as concerning temporalties The Kings of the earth saith he certainly acknowledge no iudge in earth in the point which appertaines to politike matters shall there be therefore as many Gods as there be Kings What other thing is it I pray you that Kings haue no Iudge in earth as concerning politike matters then that which we will prooue that the Politike power is distinguished from the Ecclesiastike and that the Pope can by no meanes dispose and iudge of the same For if he could surely either Kings should haue a Iudge in earth euen As touching politike matters or the Pope must alwaies dwell in heauen Therefore it cannot be but that Bellarmine either disagreeth from himselfe or that he hath slipt for want of memory or that which I beleeue not that he desires to vary and change the truth when as in one place he affirmeth for certaine and granted that Kings haue no Iudge in earth as concerning Politike matters and in another place hee sets the Pope as Iudge ouer all Kings and Princes who may iudge and depose them and at his pleasure dispose of all their kingdomes and estates For whereas he makes the distinction in these words directly and indirectly that belongeth onely to the forme and maner of proceeding but not to the force and working of the iudgement For it is euer true that he hath a Iudge in earth as concerning temporalties whom the Pope iudgeth in temporalties what way soeuer either directly or indirectly And I pray you what oddes is there in regard of the miserie and calamity of a King that is iudged by the Pope and depriued of his kingdome whether the Pope hath done it directly as if hee should giue sentence vpon the King of Sicily or Naples as the direct Lord of the fee vpon his vassell or hâ—th doâ—â—â—t indirectly as vpon other Kings who are 〈◊〉 subiect to him by any Châ—ntelar law it so be a like 〈…〉 both the iudgements And this is suffi 〈…〉 argument No let vs examine what 〈…〉 〈…〉 is plain euen 〈…〉 â—â—thered thereof by the Au 〈…〉 â—temporall power is subiect to 〈…〉 to prooue a matter by demon 〈…〉 bringâ—th sooâ—th a sigâ—e and that surely 〈…〉 which many times deâ—â—â—ues vs by a 〈…〉 â—herefore I answer to the argument by de 〈…〉 For although it be true that a tem 〈…〉 â—â—und to change the manner of his go 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—tuall good be â—â—â—dred thereby â—et is it 〈…〉 by a necessary consequence that the 〈…〉 to the Spâ—â—â—tuall but this onelâ— that a â—â—â—â—â—tuall good is morâ— excellent then a temporall good the which is true
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
subiects to his sect if a maried person beleeuing bee not free from the yoke of the other Mate vnbeleeuing although he will not continue with the beleeuing yoke-fellow without inturie to the faith and contumelie to the Creator As Innocentius III. openly teacheth in cap. Quanto § sivero De Diuort in cap. ex parte De conuers coniugat adeo vt Panorm in illum § Si verò doth say out of the reason there laid That the Church cannot dissolue such a Mariage and free the beleeuing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the vnbeleeuing when as notwithstanding a beleeuing yoke-mate may much more easily be peruerted by a yoke-mate vnbeleeuing then the whole people by a King But the bond of the subiection whereby the people is tied to the King since it proceeds both from naturall and diuine Law seemeth much more hard to be dissolued then that of maried Persons between themselues that from thence a man may easily prooue that the Church can doe no more in one then in the other But if he vnderstand his argument of the later maried persons the answer is easie out of the same Decretall Epistle of Innocent to wit That betweene such couples the Mariage is not good as much as appertaines to the indissoluble bonds of Matrimony And therefore such kind of maried parsons haue full liberty to dissolue the matrimony that they may depart either with consent and good likeing or with mislike and displeasure and the one of them euen against the liking of the other may by refusall and diuorse at his pleasure dissolue that knot of mariage for the woman may as wel send letters of diuorse to the man as the man to the wife For saith he although the Matrimony among Infidels be true because they goe together according to the commandement of the lawes yet it is not firme But amongst the beleeuers it is both true and firme because the Sacrament of faith being once admitted is neuer lost but makes firme the Sacrament of mariage that it continues in the maried persons while that continueth It is no wonder then if the maried persons brought to the faith be free from the fellowship and power of his fellow remayning in Infidelity when as although both had continued in Infidelity it had beene euen as free for each of them to depart from the other by diuorse to dissolue mariage because in the beginning there passed no forme and rate bond of Obligation betweene them And therefore the Apostle doth not command but aduise that the beleeuing wife should not depart from the vnbeleeuing husband if he be willing to stay with hir as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coniâ—giis and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs Which matters since they stand thus surely it followeth that the aduersaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from maried persons to shew that people may be freed from the Regall yoake whether they regard the mariages of the Beleeuers or of the vnbeleeuers Because they are coupled with a most straight and indissoluble knot of society whose band cannot be broken no not by the Church it selfe neither for Infidelity nor Heresie of the one part So as from hence he doth furnish vs with an argument tending rather to maintaine the strength and perpetuity of Regall authority then to dissolue and destroy the same And these are tyed by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church but the husband conuerted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandall may at his pleasure take to him another And againe the woman brought to the faith if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom shee will Seeing therefore there is no firme mariage betweene these and the politike subiection and Kingly domination and rule is ratified and approued amongst all Nations and in euery law as well by diuine as humane power what can be more vnreasonable or fond then to compare and sute them together and to deduce any argument from the society and yoake of vnbeleeuing maried persons which may be shaken of at pleasure to breake the yoake of Regall power and authority and to make the same iudgement of them both as if they were as like as might be CHAP. XXIV I Tould you in the xxiij Chapter that there were fiue reasons in Bellarmine whereby he would proue that the Pope hath temporall power ouer all secular Kings and Princes Christian of which reasons we haue run thorow three and obserued how weake they are and of what diseases they labour it remaineth now that we make our suruay of the other two which are not a whit better conditioned The first whereof is by him laid downe in these words When Kings and Princes come to the Church to be made Christians they are receiued with a Couenant either expresse or secret that they should subiect their Scepters to Christs and promise that they will obserue and defend the faith of Christ yea vnder the penalty of losing their kingdome Ergo. When they prooue Heretikes or hurt Religion they may be iudged by the Church and withall be deposed from their gouernment neither shall any iniury be done them if they be deposed I answer this reason by denying the consequent For although it be true that Princes comming to the Church do submit themselues and their scepters to Christ and euen of their owne accord doe make those promises either secretly or expresly which Bellarmine reporteth yet it is not true neither doth it follow thereof that they may be iudged and deposed by the Church or Pope if they breake their promise or neglect to keepe their Couenant and Oath Because that soueraigne iurisdiction and temporall power of Christ ouer all Kings and the whole world which he hath as the sonne of God doth not appertaine to the Church or Pope but that power onely which Christ assumed to himselfe when he was conuersant amongst men after the manner of men according to which the Pope is Christs Vicar Whereupon Bellarmine himselfe writeth excellently well We say quoth hee that the Pope hath that office which Christ had when after the maner of men he liued amongst men in the world For we may not giue the Pope those offices which Christ hath as God or as animmortall and glorious man but onely those which he had as a mortall man But Christ vsurped no temporall dominion and power when he liued as a man amongst men in earth and therefore neither the Church as the Church nor the Pope as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ can haue any temporall power as the same learned man declareth and prooueth at large in that Chapter Wherefore although Kings and Princes when they come to the Church do subiect their Kingdomes to the Lord Christ and haue Christ their iudge from whom they haue also their Kingdome but because the iudgement is of a temporall affaire when the businesse is touching
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 Church haue authority as well ouer body and goods as ouer the soules of all Christians which no sober man before him did euer so much as dreame of But with what vnhandsomnesse and incongruence hee deduceth this out of the reasons laid before by him I will say open in the next Chapter But he applieth to his purpose the Argument taken from the person of Elias and his actions in this manner Elias by the sword of the spiriâ—e that is to say by his praiers commaunded the fire to fall from heauen and to destroy those fifty who despising the authority of the Prophets said vnto him in the name of an earthly power Man of God the King hath commaunded thee to descend c. and in respect of the earthly power contemned that spirituall power which Elias was indued with all And in scorne saluted him Homo Dei man of God And in this manner hee goeth forward thus Could noâ— Elias at whose call fire deseended from heauen and deuoured the fifty men say to some Prince and Magistrate if he had been present Sir because these souldiers doe contemne me and in me God whose Prophet I am runne vpon them and kill them or could not an earthly sword haue executed the same office which the fire from heauen did performe If fire quâ—th he be the more noble element then the earth yea or then the mettals which are digged out of the earth I see not but that he who called fire from heauen to satisfie his commaundement might not much more haue bidden the Magistrate who beareth the sword to draw out his sword for him against any King in the world whatsoeuer For which opinion of his this firmament or strength onely is set down by him That it skils not much amongst wise men what is done by those things which are alike in moment and waight I will not heere adde the fourth fifth argument which he vseth out of the sacred histories touching Ozia and Athalia because Bellarmine hath referred theÌ„ among the examples whereon wee must deale in their place But these are those Paraleipomena to which Bellarmine doth remit vs and which it is no wonder that he who is both a subtill and sharpe disputer and a vehement Oratour did onely lightly report but did not transferre into his owne worke seeing they doe abound with so many and notorious faults that a man would thinke they were written not by a Diuine and a man exercised in the Scriptures but by some prophane Smatterer abusing intemperately Diuinity and the Scriptures so very little is there in those things which he assumeth in them for argument which is consonant and agreeing with the subiect in question CHAP. XXXVI First then Sanders is mistaken and is very farre wide in this that he imagineth that the Synagogue had any stroke in the abdication of Saul For it is most manifest that the whole businesse was commanded denounced and in the issue accomplished and executed by the extraordinarie iudgement and commandement of God from whom is all raigne and power without any ordinarie iurisdiction of the Priests or of the Synagogue whereby it is cleere that the comparison of the Church of Christ the Synagogue or of Samuel and the Pope is very impertinently and ignorantly made by him in this point For although we confesse that which is the truth that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is no lesse yea that it is faire more then of the Synagogue yet therfore I meane out of the comparison of the power authoritie of each Church it doth not follow that the Pope may depriue a King neglecting or contemning the Commandements of God of the right of his Kingdome instal another in his place because the Synagogue was neuer endued with that power For it is no where read in the Old Testament that the Synagogue of the Iewes or the Hâ—â—â— Priest thereof for the time did abrogate the Kingdome from any lawfull King of Israel of Iudaea being neuer so wickeâ— distnate and ciuell or depriued him of the â—ight oâ— the Kingdome as hee saith and substituted another in his place Whence it falles out that no argument from thence nor no example may bee drawne in the new Law I let passe that Samuel although he were a great Prophet yet hee was not the chiefe Priest nay not a Priest at all but onely a Leuite who therefore could doe nothing against Saul by an ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction much lesse by the authoritie of a secular iudgement because he had publikely laid that downe before when the people demanded a King Therefore Samuel in the execution of this businesse did onely performe a bare ministerie almost against his will and striuing both with praiers and teares against the same and hauing receiued a speciall charge he discharged an extraordinarie embassie being sent from the Lord as the Messenger of his diuine iudgement And that appeareth by this that when he came to the King he said Giue me leaue and I will tell thee what the Lord hath spoken to me by night Therefore he may forbeare this argument which is to small purpose drawne from the extraordinarie ministery of Samuel and the reiection of Saul in regard that the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or Pope hath no comparison or proportion no conueniencie or similitude with the same God presently reiected Saul and tooke the Kingdome from his posteritie but he suffered other Kings who seemed to be much more wicked then Saul to raigne ouer his people and to conuey the Kingdome to their children So hath it seemed good in his eies God the Lord of reuenge hath done freely and he hath done all whatsoeuer he would neither is any other reason to belong it He hath mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will be hardneth Neither may any man say vnto him Why hast thou made me thus Must we beleeue the same of the Church or of the Pope They haueth it certaine limits and bounds which they cannot passe The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by Lawes saith Ioh de 〈…〉 And therefore it is not permitted neither to the Church nor to the Ruler thereof the Pope by an absolute libertie and after the maner of God to determine of all kingdomes and businesses and to dispose of all things at their pleasure That onely is lawfull for them which is comprehended in the holy writings or traditions of the Apostles teaching their authoritie Which seeing it is so there is none that hath any skill in reasoning but may plainly see that the argument deriued from those things which Samuel did can by no meanes be concluded to establish the Popes authoritie vnlesse it be deduced either from the ordinarie power of the Synagogue wherein notwithstanding Samuel was not the chiefe to the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or from the extraordinarie ministerie of Samuel to the extraordinarie
these cannot be ioined together vnlesse this medium bee set downe and granted That the Pope may doe as much by the authority of his ordinary iurisdiction without the expresse commaundement of God as the Prophets could when the Lord commaunded specially and expresly which cannot bee said without great iniury to God But as touching the sword of Elizeus whereof hee speaketh First hee doth with much learning and piety discourse of the same That it may bee vnderstood of the same That it may be vnderstood of the spiritual sword which is in the Church in the haÌ„d of the Pope whome no man whatsoeuer hee be either King or Emperour can auoide and which is placed by the Lord in the last place both for that it is ineuitable and therfore the more to bee feared then the other as also for that the bodies onely are killed by them but the soules by this But afterwards when hee proceedes after his manner and by interpretation transferreth that place of scripture and an other of the reuenge of Elias vpon the two companies of 50. their souldiers to the temporall authority of the Pope he slideth into that shamefull errour which wee noted afore which is that Prophets without speciall commission or diuine reuelation might by their owne authority and pleasure chastise euen with capitall punishments all those whome God had decreed by a secret dispensation to take reuenge vpon either by miracle or otherwise either to manifest the glory of his maiesty or to vindicate the iniuries of his seruants and that which God had commaunded to be done onely by one meane that they may execute by other waies and meanes as please them that hereby he may proue as by a necessary consequeÌ„ce that the Pope whose authority is no lesse yea greater in the new law then was the authority of the Prophets and Priests in the old may doe full as much by his Apostolicke authority But who doth not know that God hath granted many things to the praiers of his seruants and for their takes hath wrought many thinges wonderfully euen without their prayers which it was not lawfull for them by any way or meane to attempt much lesse to execute if hee did not commaund it first The reason whereof is plaine and euident in the persons of the Prophets For it is cleare amongst all men that none of the Pro phets had any authority and gouernment ouer the Hebrewes besides a very few who were both Prophets and Princes of the people and Iudges together as Moses Iosue Samuel Dauid But the rest although they were inspired from God yet they liued priuately without any temporall gouernment declaring and executing those things onely whereof they were aduertised by the spirite of God and all their prescience and fore knowledge was so tempered and moderated from heauen that they might know and foretell neither all things for at all times but so farre as was imparted vnto them by the spirite of God whereof the Prophet Iadon is a witnesse who being deceiued by the false Prophet affirming that the Angell of the Lord had spoken with him did not vnderstand that hee lied and thereby was craâ—tâ—ly abused and brought to destruction Eliseus also is witnesse who when the poore Sunamite lay at his feet said to Giezi that desired to remoue her Lether alone for her soule is in bitternesse and the Lord bath bidit from me and hath not told me Therefore whereas Sanders asketh whether Elias could not say to some principall man or magistrate if hee had beene present runne vpon these Souldiers and kill them and if so bee that Prince bad offended if vpon Elias his word he had slaine the Kings subiects that cannot be resolued but by the tenor of Gods pleasure known in euery businesse And therefore as concerning Elias in this case if God did giue him commission to punish such offenders either specially by the sword or generally by any meane whatsoeuer no man doubts but that hee might without sinne commit to any man the authority and execution of the sword and any man without offence might vndertake to execute that commaundement But if as it is likely the Lord had only reuealed so much to him that he would destroy with fire from heauen those wicked desiders and scoffers he was onely to expect that and to practise nothing else against them after the guise and fashion of men or giue order at his pleasure to execute any ciuill punishments vpon them which he might not doe without impietie because he had receiued neither from God nor man any ordinarie nor warranted delegated iurisdiction to do it And for that cause he had sinned grieuously if he had willed or perswaded any Prince or Magistrate any such thing and these also had sinned if vndertaking his commaundement they had slaine the Kings subiects Nothing can be propounded more certainely and plainly then this distinction that it is a wonder that so absurd an opinion should fall from Sanders as to thinke that Elias might simply and without the expresse commaundement of God execute death vpon the Kinges souldiers in what manner hee listed Now the reasons he vseth for the strengthning of this opinion of his are friuolous and vtterly vnworthy to bee brought by a man of a sharpe iudgement especially a Diuine for the dicision of such a question That seruice which the sire from heauen did saith he could not the earthly sword haue performed the same Yes surely could it and not onely a sword but also any other weapon if it had beene vsed by Gods commaundement neither did any euer doubt of that But because the Lord prepared that reuenge by fire onely against the fifty and acquainted the Prophet in the spirit with his purpose Elias neither ought nor could take his reuenge by any other instrument or meane vnlesse the same had likewise beene declared to him by the same spirit because in matters not reuealed he was neither ordinary or extraordinary Iudge Moreouer if that which the lawes of men doe ordaine and enact When any man is condemned to be punished with the sword hee ought to bee punished with the sword not with an axe or bill or club or halter or by any other way Who is so auerse from truth and from all reason to belieue that one certaine and particular manner of execunon being prescribed by the Lord may be changed by man into an other forme and kind of punishment For as in all businesses the ends of the commaundement are to be kept diligently so chiefly in the diuine commaundements God hath charged that his commaundements be kept euerely Hereby it appeares that it is very sleight and slender which he laieth downe for a strength of his conceit That with wise men it maketh no matter what is made of those things which are of the same momient and weight And herein his errour is double oâ—e because he draweth that Maxime of his to vniuersallie and