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
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
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
produce wonderfull effects as euen at this day sometimes he vpon the like occasion doth produce among people which be newly won to Christ. CHAP. XXVI SEeing these matters stand thus the way is made more easie for vs to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation being now already opened by vs and retorted backe vpon himselfe for they fall to ground partly thorow their owne fault and weaknesse and partly because they are not wel set vpon the foundation whereon they are built For first out of that that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Woolues that be may driue them away by any meane he can he reasoneth in this manner Woolues which destroy the Church of God are Heretikes Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolfe that is of a Christian become an Heretike the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also command the People that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of his gouernment ouer his subiects But he is deceiued or doth deceiue vs by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion For in that he saith that the Pastor of the Church may driue away an Heretike Prince by excommunication that is very true and is deriued out of that principle by a necessary consecution But that he may onely marry that he ought not to do it but at such times when as he may coÌ„modiously do it without scandall and hurt to the Church as I haue de-declared before For where there is danger least the peace of the Church may be dissolued and least The member of Christ be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes the seuere mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary that is to say is wholy to be left to the iudgement and punishment of God for Counsell of separation that is of excommunication are both vaine and hurtfull and Sacrilegious because they become both impious and preud and doe more disturbe the weake good ones then correct the sâ—urdy ill ones This is the doctrine of S. Angustine approoued by the common voice of the Church whereby it is euident how rasâ—ly and vnwisely certaine Popes haue separated from the Church by excommunication most mighty Emperours and Kings with the great scandall of the whole world and dissolution of the peace of the Church whom it had beene farre better to haue tolerated and to haue discouered their faults onely and with mourning to haue bewailed them in the Church For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept and for the saluation of the weake brethren and such as now were fed onely with milke least the members of the body of Christ should be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes Therefore the Popes might doe this but they ought not Non omne quod licet honestum est Very well saith the Apostle omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt Therefore the first part of the conclusion is true that the Pastor of the Church may driue away heretike Princes by excommunication But that which followeth and withall command the people that they follow him not hath two eares to hold by as I may say with Epictetus the one sound the other broken I meane a twofold vnderstanding the one true the other faulty For if he speake in this sense that it is the duty of the Pope to command the subiects that they follow not an heretike Prince in his heresie that they run not with him in his madnesse nor admit and swallow downe his damnable errors for that they suffer not themselues to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true and is deriued very truly out of the same principle and fountaine and this is the best sense of those words For there is nothing so conuenient and comely for the pontificall dignity and the whole order Ecclesiastike nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people as that according to the patterne of the ancient fathers of the Church the principall Bishop himselfe first and the rest of his brethren all of them should preach the word should be instant in season and out of season conuince intreat rebuke in all patience and doctrine That like Faithfull witnesses and good seruants whom the Lord hath set ouer his family they may so worke both by word and example that the people follow not the errors of their King nor either dissemble nor forsake the Catholike faith thorow any either threatnings or allurements of the King which because most of them either do not all at this day or at the least much more slackly then they ought and that duty which it becomes them to performe themselues they put ouer to certaine begging Friers what maruell is it if many in our age haue been caried away as it were with a whirle wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds into the toiles of the diuell This as I haue said is the best sense But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speake in this sense both the cause which he hath in hand and this clause following Ac proinde prinare eum dominio in subditos doth plainly declare Therefore he giues vs the broken care of the pot I meane the corrupt and the very worst sense of those words forsooth that the pastor of the Church may command the subiect that they execute no commandement of such a Prince and that by any meanes they yeeld him no reuerence obedience honor in those matters which belong euen to a temporall and ciuill authority And therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects But this is false and flat contrary to the law of God and precepts of the Apostles Feare the Lord my sonne and the King Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and powers to obey their commandement Be subiect to euery creature for God or to the King as soueraigne feare God honor the King and diuers of that kind which things seeing they be spoken of wicked Kings and persecutors of the Church for at that time no other ruled in the world they can not but belong to the worst and vnworthiest kind of Kings Therefore this is that which I said before that either he deceiues of purpose or is deceiued by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion For it is true that a Pastor of the Church may driue away an heretike Prince by excommunication but it is false that he may depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects For obedience due to Kings and all superiors is both by 〈◊〉 of nature and of God how then can the Pope by any meane dispense with people against the same For they that with more diligence and exact care doe search the scriptures doe obserue a too fold kind of the precepts of Paul one is of those by which he publisheth the law of God which he was sent to
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
generallie to all those things which are made by nature or Art or hand whereas notwithstanding as touching humane actions it is certaine that that sentence hath place onely in those things which men doe of their owne accord or vpon a commission receiued with free liberty of execution as for example that he is called a murderer who by villany hath beene the cause of any mans death by any meane or instrument because in such a crime it skilleth not what is made by those things quae eiusdem ponderis momenti sunt But in the case wherein any thing is commended strictly and by name to any mans trust to be performed in a certaine manner and after a certaine forme the lawes doe not allow the Committee to execute the same any other way as appeareth plainely by the place which I related aboue and infinite others of the Ciuill and Pontificiall law His other errour is that he thinketh there is no ods nor difference if wicked men be strooken with a diuine thunderbolt from God or with force of weapons by the power of men because he saith that they haue both one weight for although there be one effect of all extreme punishments that is the death and destruction of the condemned yet there is much consideration to bee had by what manner and meane the same is executed vpon the guilty because there bee degrees as of crimes so of paines and hereby it commeth to passe that by the kind of the vltion and griceousnesse or lightnes of the punishment we iudge of the hainousnesse of the offence by the proportion and resemblance of the punishment with the fault For the distribution of punishments and rewards doth require a Geometricall proportion The Poet saith pretily adsit Regula peccatis quae poenas â—roget ae quas Nescutica dignum horribili sectere fligello But Where greater punishments doe follow let him bee corrected with greater punishment Excellently saith S. Augustine As al other things Who doubteth but that this is the more hainous offence which is punished more seuerely Therefore doth he verie vndiscreetelie determine that all punishments being taken by sword by fire by famine and by other means are of the same waight and heauines that he might conclude that the Prophet had discharged his dutie if hee had procured to haue them flame with the earthly sword whome the Lord said he would strike with a thunderbolt from heauen Who doth not know that the anger and reuenge of almighty God doth shine much more brightlie in punishments not which are inflicted after the ordinary manner of men but are sent strangelie miraculously from heauen or who can weigh matters so vneuenly in his iudgement as to say that they perished by punishments equall for grieuousnesse who being swallowed vp by the gaping earth descended aliue into hell as well as those who are taken away by the ordinarie or extraordinarie punishments of mans lawes And hitherto I thinke I haue said enough of these reasons of Sanders which were omitted by Bellarmine not without cause Now let vs returne out of this by-path to Bellarmine againe CHAP. XXXVII HItherto haue I bent the sharpenesse of my best vnderstanding to enquire with diligence into all the reasons which Bellarmine or Sanders haue touching the temporall authoritie of the Pope Therefore now it remaineth that with the like care and indeauour I conuert my mind and hand to examine the examples propounded by Bellarmine which truely is but a poore and a weake kind of proofe For he pretends that his opinion is proued two manner of wayes by reasons and by examples I could haue wished with all my heart that hee had brought forth stronger reasons the affection which I beare to the Sea Apostolique doth so affect and possesse me that I doe very earnestly desire that all the authority which this author doth attribute vnto her may bee also allowed by the best right that can be But wee haue heard his reasons already now let vs heare his examples The first is saith he 2. Paralip 26. Where we read that Ozia the King when hee vsurped the Priests office was by the high Priest cast out of the temple and being stroke by God with a leprosie for the same offence was forced to goe out of the City and to leaue his kingdome to his Sonne For it is plaine that hee was put out of the City and gouernement of the Kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest For we reade in the 13. of Leuit. Whosoeuer saith the Law shall bee desiled with the leprosie and is separated by the iudgement of the Priest hee shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing then this was a law in Israel withall wee read 2 Paralip 26. that the King dwelled without the City in a solitary house and that his sonne did iudge within the City the people of the land we are constrained to say that he was separated by the iudgement of the Priest and consequently depriued of the authority of raigning If therefore a Priest could in times past iudge a King for a corporall leprosie and depriue him of his Kingdome why may not he doe it now for a spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by the leprosie as Augustine teachâ—th in quaest Euangel lib. 2. quaest 40. especially seeing 1. Cor. 10. Paul doth say that all happened to the Iewes in figures Thus he I haue often wondred and yet cannot leaue wondring that men famous for the opinion of learning should commit their thoughts to writing in so sleight and homelie a fashion that a man would thinke they had not read the Authors which they commend or haue not fully vnderstood those they haue read or that of set purpose they would corrupt their meaning which fault is very common in our age wherein most of the Writers following the credit of other men doe draw the testimonies and authorities of their assertions not from the Fountaines themselues but from the Riuers and Pipes being corruptly deriued by the negligence and fault of other men so as looke what the first haue either malitiously or negligently detorted and wrested to another sense that others trusting to their search and iudgement doe transcribe into their bookes for certaine and vndoubted testimonies Which although it be very seldome found in Bellarmine being a faithfull and a cleere Author yet it cannot be denied but that hee following vnaduisedly Sanders and others hath not erred a little in the three Chapters of the affirming the Popes temporall authoritie especially in propounding the former example and this following I prooued long agoe in my bookes contra Monarchomachos that it was most false That Ozia was depriued of the authoritie of his gouernment by the iudgement of the Priest For in very truth there is nothing more expresly deliuered in the whole historie of the Kings then that â—zias from the sixteenth yeere of his age wherein hee beganne his raigne remained
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
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
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