flocke But a shepheard hath a threefold charge one about Wolues that hee driue them away by all meanes he can the other about the Rammes that he may shut them vp if they hurt the flocke with their hornes the third about the rest of the sheepe that he giue euery one conuenient food Ergo The Pope hath this triple charge Out of this principle and foundation are drawen three strong arguments as he surmiseth But not to goe farre first I answer to this very fundamentall proposition that it is all true and maketh for me and that the very contrarie of that which he affirmes may very handsomely be gathered from thence I say gathered that the Pope hath no temporall power at all or may exercise any vpon Christian Princes as he is the Vicar of Christ and successor of S. Peter seeing such a manner of power is not necessarie for the Pope for the discharging and fulfilling of his Pastorall dutie And that is euidently concluded by this argument Christ by commending his sheepe to Peter gaue him all power necessarie to defend the flocke But he gaue him no temporall power Therefore temporall power is not necessarie to defend the flocke Secondly we will proceed in this manner It is a thing vnreasonable that the Pope who is the successor of S. Peter should haue more power then had Peter himselfe But Peter had not any temporall power ouer Christians Therefore Neither the Pope as he is his successor The proposition of the former reason is without all controuersie true And the Assamption is prooued by the testimonie and confession of Bellarmine himselfe For lib. quint. de Rom. Pontif. where he endeuours to establish his opinion of this thing by a similitude of the flesh and the spirit he writeth thus For as the spirit and flesh stand one toward the other in Man so doe the two powers in the Church for the flesh and the spirit be as it were two Common-wealthes which may be found both separated and toyned together flesh is found without the spirit in beasts spirit is found without flesh in the Angels and a little after Euen so the Ciuill power hath her Princes Lawes Iudgements c. Likewise the Ecclesiasticall her Bishops Canons Iudgements the one hath for her end a temporall peace the other euerlasting saluation sometimes they are found seuered as once in the time of the Apostles sometime toyned as now If these powers were seuered in the time of the Apostles as in trueth they were both in Right and in Deed it followeth necessarily that S. Peter had no temporall power otherwise it should be false that they were seuered for it there be place to the similitude propounded by him it will follow that as there is nothing fleshly in Angels and nothing spirituall in beasts so in the time of the Apostles there should be no temporall power in the Church or spirituall in the Ciuill state Therefore we must confesse either that temporall power is not necessarie for the chiefe Pastor of the Church or that the Prince of the Apostles himselfe and cheefe Pastor S. Peter was not furnished and accomplished with all things necessarie for the discharge of his Pastorall dutie And this is as contrarie as contrarie may be to that which he had already said in his fundamentall reason as I may call it to wit That all abilitie necessarie to defend the flocke was giuen to Peter The same also is prooued by this that all ciuill and temporall power at that time depended of heathen Princes to whom Peter himselfe witnesse Bellarmine although the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ was subiect in temporalities both by Right and in Deed. Wherof it followeth that either S. Peter was induced with no temporall power or that he receiued it from heathen Princes otherwise as we said before it should be false that those powers were then separated But it is certaine that he receiued none of them and therefore that he had none at all And certainly these reasons are more plaine then any man without fraud and cunning can gainesay that it is a wonder to see that learned men and otherwise godly should so be blinded with an inconsiderate and vnaduised heate that they should not sticke to embrace and follow doubtfull things for certaine obscure for euident crooked for straight for plaine and easie reasons those which be perplexed and intricately bewrapped with many controuersies and contradictions But they take care you will say to amplifie and adorne the Sea Apostolike with the increase and accession of this power and authoritie And is there any Catholike who doth not commend their minds that are affected to that Sea which is the foundation and strength of our faith That they doe grace and aduance by all meanes that Sea which no man can sufficiently commend according to her worth I doe much commend them but that they attribute more to it then is fit and that with the great scandall of many that I doe not commend for we our selues also do no lesse honour the same Sea we no lesse loue reuerence admire it as that which is the true seate of Peter and being placed in the rocke which is Christ hath ouercome all heresies and obtaineth by good right the chiefe place in the Church But the truth forbids that we should aduance her with this increase of Power our Conscience bearing vs witnesse before God and the Lord Iesu before whom in the day of the reuelation of the iust iudgement both these our writings and theirs shall appeare consigned with their owne merrits Therefore there is small cause why they should bring this former reason for themselues For Christ when hee said to Peter Pasce oues meas appointed him indeed Pastor of his flocke but a Spirituall Pastor not a Temporal and gaue him all ability necessary for that office whereby it appeares that Temporal power is not necessary for the Pope because Christ gaue it not to Peter himselfe Neither haue we heard any where that either S. Peter or any other of his Apostles did practise any temporall power or authority by vertue whereof he did either directly or indirectly that no man may suppose any force in words punish the forsakers of the Christian faith with Ciuill punishment after the manner of Magistrates It is true indeed that sometimes it hath come to passe that Temporall punishment as death or Torment hath followed a spiritual sentence the church at that time standing in need of miracles and wonders to confirme the faith which kind of punishments did strike a farre greater feare into the mindes of Christians then if after the manner of men they had suffered punishment at the hands of Ciuill Magistrates And this is that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians What will you shall I come to you with a rod or in loue and in the spirit of meekenesse The rod he calleth that spirituall power which by the wonderfull working of God did at that time
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
subiect to the Temporall authoritie of secular Princes in those seuerall Countries wherein they liue and are punishable by the said Princes as well as other lay subiects in all cases that are not meerclie Spirituall Chap. 34. He returnes to the particular answere of Bellarmine his argument and sheweth that Excommunication workes onely so farre as to exclude from the companie of the faithfull but not to depriue Princes of any temporall estate Chap. 35. He propoundeth certaine reasons of Nicholas Sanders which had been omitted by Bellarmine for the establishing of the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes Chap. 36. He answereth the said reasons of Sanders touching Samuel and Saul 2. Touching Ahias the Shilonite 3. Touching Elias 4. Touching Elizeus his sword as reasons forged either of malice against the Prince then with whom he was angrie or of affection to the then Pope or some other fume of braine they haue so small colour to proue his purpose Chap. 37. He discusseth other examples alleaged by Bellarmine and first that of Ozias the King of Iuda and herein he taxeth Bellarmine his slight dealing to transcribe out of other mens collections such matters as they haue either negligently or maliciouslie wrested against the direct and pregnant storie of the Scriptures as appeareth in this example Chap. 38. He discusseth another example touching Athalia and Ioiadas the high Priest which hee sheweth to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and nothing attailing to conclude his purpose Chap. 39. He discusseth a third example from Ambrose Bishop of Millane and Theodosius the Emperour and maketh it plaine how little it makes for the Popes authoritie temporall ouer Emperours and Kings Chap. 40. Hee answereth Bellarmines examples of the latter Popes first by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preuention out of Sotus That the act of Popes makes not an Article of the faith Secondly by the testimonie of Platina he conuinceth the whole storie related by Bellarmine touching Pope Gregorie the 2 and Leo the 3 Emperour of vntruth Chap. 41. He answereth another instance of Bellarmine touching Pope Zacharie and Chilperique King of France the very explication of which whole businesse is refutation sufficient to frustrate Bellarmine his purpose in alleaging the same to winne any temporall authoritie to Popes ouer Christian Princes GVIL BARCLAII I. C. Of the Authoritie of the Pope whether and how farre forth he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber Posthumus MAny men haue written of this Argument especially in our time diuersly and for diuers respects but none more learnedly and cleerely then the most woorthie Cardinall and most learned Diuine Rob. Bellarmine in those bookes which he hath written of the chiefe or Romane Bishop Who as he hath notably prooued the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power of the Bishop of Rome so if he could haue confirmed with more sound weight of authorities and reasons that temporall power which hee affirmeth out of the opinion of certaine Diuines that hee hath there were nothing in that Treatise which might iustly be reprehended or required by any man If therefore many both Diuines and Ciuilians one after another haue emploied themselues in the discussing of this question and the iudgement of the former writers thereof hath beene no preiudice to the opinion of them which followed why should not I also since I haue spent my time in this studie challenge after a sort by a peculiar interest some place in the searching of the truth it selfe But before I beginne to shew what I thinke of this matter there must some care and diligence be vsed by me by way of Prouision Least either any weak ones should conceaue any scandall who esteeme the Pope to bee a God who hath all power in heauen and earth that I may vse Gerson◠words or any aide seeme to come to the calumnies of the Nouators wherewith they prosecute the Apostolike sea that they might depriue the chiefe Pastor of souls of all his authoritie Therefore the Reader must vnderstand thus much that I doe beare to that Sea all reuerence good will neither do goe about either here or any where else to diminish any thing of the power and dignitie due to the Vicar of Christ and the successor of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul by whose patronage I doe piously and plainly perswade my selfe that I am daily assisted but that I haue this purpose onely to search without all guile deceit without loue and hatred what and how great that power is which all Christians ought to acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome that is in the chiefe Bishop and Pope as they call him and without those assertions which wrest mens mindes to one side or other that I onely haue God before mine eies least at the returne of the Lord I be challenged either for the vnprofitable emploiment or the hiding of my talent Therefore I desire them who haue written before mee of a good minde as I suppose that they take it not in scorne or anger if I depart from their opinion For as I may say with S. Augustine wee ought not to esteeme euery mans disputation although they bee Catholike and praise woorthie as if they were Canonicall Scriptures as though it were not lawfull for vs sauing the reuerence which is due vnto them to mislike and refuse some things in their writings if perhaps wee shall finde that they thinke otherwise then the truth beares being by the helpe of God vnderstood by others or by our selues As I my selfe am in the writings of other men so would I haue the vnderstanding Readers to bee in mine that they would either curteouslie admit or with reason reprehend But to the matter There is amongst Catholikes for what others thinke I force not a whit but those too much addicted to the Pope a twofold opinion touching this question one is of the Canonists who affirme that All rights of heauenly and earthly gouernment are granted by God to the Pope and that whatsoeuer power is in this world whether Temporall and Ciuill or Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall is conferred by Christ vpon Peter and his successors to which principle they doe easily draw any thing so often as any disputation ariseth touching the absolute power or as they vse to speake touching the fulnesse of the power of the Pope The other is the opinion of certaine Diuines who do iustly dislike this ground of the Canonists because it is not cleerely prooued either by authoritie of Scripture nor tradition of Apostles nor practise of the auncient Church nor by the doctrine and testimonies of the auncient Fathers Therefore these doe by most sound reasons conuince their opinion I meane of the Canonists but yet in such manner as that by the losse of that the Pope looseeth neuer a whit the more of his temporall interest and power but they see that safely bestowed and doe preserue it safe and sound for him For they hold thus That the Pope as Pope hath not
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
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
whence was that of his who was both King and Prophet against thee only haue I sinned And afterward For where as according to the Apostle it is a fearefull thing for euery man to fall into the hands of the liuing God yet for Kings who haue none aboue them besides him to feare it will be so much the more fearefull that they may offend more freely then others I can call in more and that very many to testifie the truth of this matter but what needs any more In the mouth of two or three witnesses let euery word stand If the assertors of the contrary opinion can bring forth so many testimonies of ancient fathers or indeed but any one wherein it is expresly written that the Church or the supreme head thereof the Bishop hath temporall power ouer secular Kings and Princes and that he may coerce and chastise them by temporall punishments any way either directly or indirectly or inflict any penalty either to the whole Kingdome or any part of it I shall be content that the whole controuersie shall be iudged on their side without any appeale from thence For indeed I desire nothing so much as that a certaine meane might be found by which the iudgement of the contrary side might be clearely confirmed But while I expect that in vaine in the meane time the truth caries me away with her conquered and bound into the contrary part Therefore I demand this now of the aduersaries whether it be likely that those ancient and holy fathers who haue written of the great power and immunity of Kings and Emperors were so negligent that of very carelesnesse they did not put in mind the Princes of their time of this temporall power of the Pope or that they left not this remembrance if they made any consigned vnder their hands in writing To the end that Princes should feare not only the secret iudgements of God but also the temporall iurisdiction of the Church and Pope by which they might be throwen downe from their seates so oft as the Church or the Pope who is the head thereof shall thinke it fit in regard of religion and the common weale certainly to be silent and to haue concealed so great a matter if it was true was to abuse Kings and Princes whom they had perswaded both by writings and preachings that they could be iudged by God only in temporall matters Or shall we imagine that they were so vnskilfull and ignorant of the authority of the Church that they knew not that it was indued with such a power Or in a word that they were so fearefull and narrow minded that they durst not tell the Princes that which they knew If none of these things can be imputed and charged on those ancient fathers why I pray you should we now embrace any new power which is grounded vpon no certaine either authority or reason but in these last ages deuised and thrust vpon the people by certaine fellowes who are seruâ—ly and basely addicted to the Pope and so lay a new and strange yoke vpon Princes CHAP. IX I Haue already plainly shewed that the last part of the second reason of the Aduersaries is most false which is That the Church therefore tolerated Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other heretike Princes because she could not chastise them without the hurt of the people Now will I prooue that the latter part is euen as false to wit that Henrie the IV. Emperour and other Princes ouer whom the later Popes haue arrogated to themselues temporall power might be coerced and chastised by the Church without hurt of the people Which before that I take in hand I doe hartely request not onely the friendly Reader but euen the Aduersaries themselues that the question being discussed they would weigh with themselues and iudge truly and sincerely whether it were not more easie for the Church to punish those first Princes by the aforesaid waies and meanes then to reduce into order the said Henry the IV by Rodolphus the Sweuian or Philip the Faire by Albert of Austria Of whom the one scorned and repressed the arrogancie of the Pope the other after diuers battles fought with diuers successe at the length in the last battle defeated his Competitor and Enemie whom the Pope had set vpon him and as for the Pope of whom he was excommunicate he banished him out of Rome and plagued him with perpetuall banishment With how great hurt and spoile to the people the Pope laboured to execute that temporall power vpon Heâ—ry the XII Oâ—to Frisingen witnesseth whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for bloud and for learning and for integritie of lifeâ— who write of the Excommunication and deposition of the said Henrie done by Gregorie the VII in this manner I read and read againe the actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and finde no where that before this man any of them was excommunicate or depriued of his Kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse any man thinke it is to be accompted for an Excommunication that Philip was for a small time placed amongst the Pâ—nitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome and that Theodosius was â—equestredor suspended from entring into the Church by blessed Ambrose for his bloudie murder In which place it is to be obserued that Otto doth plainly professe that he findes in former ages no example of priuation of a Kingdome although hee propounded these two instances touching Excommunication if not true at least hauing a shew of true ones And afterward within a few lines he writeth thus But what great mischiefes how many warres and hazardes of warres followed thereof how oft miserable Rome was besieged taken spotled because Pope was set vp againe Pope and King aboue King it is a paine to remember To be short the rage of this storme did so hurry and wrap within it so many mischiefes so many schismes so many dangers both of soules and bodies that the same euen of it selfe by reason both of the crueltie of the persecution and the continuance thereof were sufficient to prooue the vnhappinesse of mans miserie Vpon which occasion that time is by an Ecclesiasticall writer compared to the thicke darknesse of Egypt For the foresaid Bishop Gregory is banished the cuie by the King and Gibert Bishop of Rauenna is thrust into his place Further Gregorie remaining at Salernum the time of his death approching is reported to haue said I haue loued iustice and hate â— iniquitie therefore I die in banishment Therefore because the kingdome being cut off by the Church was grieuously 〈◊〉 in her Prince the Church also bereaued of so great a Pastor who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeale and authoritie conceaued no small griefe Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people They that write that the Bishop of Rome whom they meane in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperour because hee could chastise him without
hurt to the people it must needs be that either they haue not read this author or that they haue no care of their credite who ensnare themselues in so manifest an vntruth If they knew not this before let them learne now at the last out of this graue writer that that is false which they ignorantly giue out for true and I wish them to consider and iudge vnpartially if it had not been better for that Gregorie the Pope should haue suffered the wils desperate maners of Henry like to Constantius Iulianus Valens and other Emperours who vexed the Church and with teares and praiers to intret the goodnes of God either for his recouerie or destruction rather than by one insolent and strange act and that very vnnecessary to stir vp so many schismes and murders so many sackings of people and Cities so many disgraces shamefull against the Sea Apostolike so many warres against the Popes and other furious Tragedies with the destruction of all the people and to nourish and continue these being stirred vp to the exceeding mischiefe of the Church It may be that Gregorie did it of a good minde let God iudge of the intention but it cannot be that he did it rightly wisely and according to dutie nor but that he erred very wide according to the manner and counsell of a man when he assumed that to himselfe which in truth was not his that is to say the office of deposing an Emperour and the power to substitute an other in his place as though the fee of that humane kingdome had belonged to him which that verse doth sufficiently declare which is reported by Otto and aboue is transcribed by vs. Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho Now it is certaine that it is not alwaies well done and according to the will of God which is done euen of men otherwise very good thorough heat of holinesse and a good zeale Moses while he killed the Egiptian with a zeale to defend the Hebrew sinned Oza thorough a zeale to vphold the Arke of the Lord swarue and lying a tone side touched it and died Peter of a zeale to defend his Lord and Master cut of Malchus his eare and was rebuked for it Hence S. Ambrose to Theodosius I know that you are godly mercifull gentle and peaceable louing faith and the feare of the Lord but for the most part something or other deceiues vs some haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge Inconsiderate zeale often inciteth to mischiefe Therfore in my opinion there was a great fault in Pope Gregory about this businesse because he did not obserue that it belonged to the dutie of the cheefe Pastor rather to let passe one mans wickednesse vnpunished then thorough a desire to correct the same to wrap the innocent and harmelesse multitude in danger And therefore he ought not to haue excommunicate that Emperor whose wickednesse so great a number of men had conspired to maintaine that they could not be separated without a schisme a renting nay not without the dissolution of the whole Church The great light of the Church S. Austine aduised the same many ages agoe both holily and wisely and prooued the same clearely out of the writings of the Apostle Paul whose iudgement was so well liked by the Church that she recorded it amongst the Canons and therefore worthy that I should transcribe it into this place and to be written not with â—ike but with gold nor in paper that will quickly weare but in â—int and adamant or if there be any thing more durable and lasting then they The chastisement saith he of many can not be wholâ—ome but wâ—en he is chasti 〈◊〉 that hath not a multitude to partake with him But when the same aâ— case hath possessed many there is 〈…〉 but to greâ—â—e and mourne that 〈…〉 from their destruction 〈…〉 reâ—caled to holy Ezechâ—eâ—â— Least when 〈…〉 they root vp the wheat also nor 〈…〉 the Lords â—ornâ— but they themselues 〈…〉 amongst the 〈…〉 And-therefore the same 〈…〉 out many who were corrupted 〈…〉 writing to the same 〈◊〉 in his â—econd 〈◊〉 did not againe prescribe that they should not eat with such for they were many Neither could it be did of them If any brother be called a fornicator 〈…〉 any such like that they 〈…〉 much as eat with such but he saith least when I come againe to you God doe humble me and I lament many 〈…〉 haue sinned before and haue not repented for the 〈…〉 and fornication which they haue committed By this mourning of his threatning that they are rather to begun 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 from God then by that castigation that 〈◊〉 may forbeare their company And a litle after indeed if the contagâ—on of sinning haue taken hould of a multitude the 〈◊〉 mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary for 〈…〉 that â—â— of Excommunication are both 〈…〉 they prooue 〈…〉 more trouble the weake ones that be good thâ—◠〈◊〉 the stâ—ut ones that be wicked Seeing these things stand thus there is none as I suppose by comparing S. Austines rule which also is the rule of the Church with the practise of Gregorie against Henrie but will euidently see that the Pope erred greatly that would excommunicate an Emperour whose party a huge multitude both of the Cleargie and laity did follow with manifest danger of a grecuous schisme and much more when as by an odious sentence he went about to depriue him of the right of his Empire to which the Bishop himselfe had no title in the world that it is no maruell if as Sigâ—â—ert wâ—â—toth the said Gregorie a little before his death repented him of all those things which he had done against the Emperor I am willing to set downe the place of Sigâ—bert because it contemeth not his owne opinion which is suspected to the aduersaires because he followed Henricus his partie but the historicall narration of an other author Pope 〈◊〉 saith he who is also called Gregorie the 7. dieth in banishment at Salernum Oâ— him I find it thus 〈◊〉 We would haue you know who are carefull of the Ecclesiasticall charge that the Lord Apostolike 〈◊〉 who also is Gregorie lying now at the point of death caâ—ed to him one of twelue Cardinalls whom he cheefly loued aboue the rest and confessed to God and S. Peter and to the whole Church that he had greatly offended in the pastroall charge which was committed to him to gouerne and by the instigation of the Deuill had raised anger and hatred against mankind Then at last he sent the foresaid confessor to the Emperor and to the whole Church to wish all grace and indulgence to them because he saw his life was at an end and instantly he put on his 〈◊〉 vesture and remitted and loosed the bands of all his curses to the Emperor and to all christian people the liuing and the dead the spiritually and the laâ—â—y and willed his owne 〈◊〉 to depart
summae de Ecclesia Secondly it may be said and better with Albert Pighius lib. 5. Hierar Ecclesi cap. 7. that there is a difference betweene Heathen and Christian Princes for when the Princes were heathen the Bishop was not their Iudge but cleane contrarie he was subiect to them in all ciuill Causes no lesse then other men for it is plaine that the Bishop was not Iudge of them because he is not a Iudge but of the faithfull 1. Cor. 6. What haue I to doe to iudge of them which are without And that of the contrarie he is ciuilly subiect to them both of right and indeed as it is plaine For the Christian law depriueth no man of his right and dominion Therefore euen as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and to Kings so also after Wherefore Peter and Paul euery where exhort the faithfull to be subiect to Princes as appeareth ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeale to Caesar and acknowledged him his Iudge when hee was accused of the sedition and tumult which was raised amongst the people Thus he whereby it is plaine that not onely want of strength was the reason why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes but also because all law both diuine and humane was against such an action and in the same booke and Chapter he teacheth more openly when hee saith that to iudge punish depose belonged onely to a superiour which is most true and without all controuersie is confirmed by the common iudgement of men And now by these most certaine Principles set downe and granted by him euery one that hath any skill in reasoning may gather that the Christians although they were mightie both in numbers and strength could not by right depose Nero Diocletian and other heathen and wicked Princes and that is concluded by this strong and vnanswerable demonstration Subiects cannot iudge punish or depose a Superiour But all Christians were subiect to Nero Diocletian c. and other Emperours and Heather Kings Ergo they could not depose such Emperours or Kings The proposition is granted by him and likewise the Assumption which doe stand vpon most certaine truth and the conclusion depends of the Antecedents by a necessary consecution and is directly contrary to that which he had said That Christians in times past might lawfully depos Nero Diocletian c But for that they wanted temporall power strength they forbare that purpose Therfore it is false and worthy to be reprehended For aientia negantia simul vera esse nequeunt Heereby also is the falshood of the opinion of S. Thomas euident which we haue refuted aboue in this Chapter CHAP. XXII I Said that Bellarmine vsed a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason which is That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretike King whereof I haue already noted the faults of the first Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what maner of arguments they are and what strength they haue Therefore the second argument is this To tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King labouring to draw men to his sect is to expose religion to manifest danger But Christians are not bound neither indeed ought they to tolerate an infidell King with the manifest danger of Religion for when there is difference and contention between the law of God and the law of Man it is a matter of Gods law to keepe and obserue the true faith and religion which is one onely and not many but it is a point of mans law that we haue this or that King To these things I answer that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these doe not reason rightly nor according to arte but doe propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without forme For for that which he assumes But Christians are not bound yea they ought not without euident danger of religion to tolerate an Infidell King Insteed whereof should haue beene placed in good Logike this Assumption But Christians are not bound yea they ought not to expose religion to euident danger That the Conclusion might follow thereof Ergo It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King For the assumption which he setteth downe is almost iust the same with the Proposition that is in question But to allow him somewhat let vs grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good forme and let vs answer to the force of the argument I say then that his Proposition is false I say againe that it is not true that To tolerate an Heretike or Heathen King endeuouring to draw men to his sect is to expose Religion to manifest danger But it is onely to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretike or Infidell King to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people seeing now the people hath no iust and lawful remedy left them to deliuer Religion but onely Constancy and Patience And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians vnlesse we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians who did without any shrinking or tergiuersation or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius Iuliaenus Valens and other renouncers of Christian religion because they came lawfully to the Empire and whom they might most easily haue remooued or deposed they honoured them with all honour duty and reuerence euen because they were their Emperours and Kings These holy fathers then and worthy Christians in that age did tolerate Heretike and Infidel Kings although if we onely looke at their temporall strength they were furnished with excellent meanes and opportunities to depose them and yet none that is in his wits will euer say that they exposed Religion to most euident danger thorow that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy Now I speake of tolerating that King who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen where Christians doe not rule or who when he was admitted and enstalled into his Gouernment was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King ouer themselues no law nor religion enforceing whom they know to be either an Heretike or an Infidell is indeed to expose Religion to most euident danger and in that behalfe it were a greeuous sinne in the Christians and they that doe it are worthy miserably to perish therefore Now for that which he deduceth out of the opposition betweene diuine and humane law I answer â—reeâ—ly that he is much deceiued in this that in this matter he supposeth there is a crosse encounter and conflict betweene the law of God and the law of man For they are not repugnant To keepe faith and Religion and to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King Neither is the one by diuine law the other by humane as he imagineth But they be two Preceptâ— of Gods law
heart those wordes doe testifie which he writeth more expresly about the end of that Epistle of his necessarie subiection and obedience toward the Emperour Mauricius had made a law which though it were vniust and preiudiciall to the libertie of the Church yet Gregorie receiuing a Commandement from the Emperour to publish it did send it accordingly into diuers countries to be proclaimed Therfore thus he concludes that Epistle I being subiect to the Commandement haue caused the same law to bee sent abroad into diuers parts of the world and because the same law is no whit pleasing to Almightie God behold I haue signified so much to my honorable Lordes by this letter of my suggestion Therefore in both respects I haue discharged my dutie in that I haue both performed my Obedience to the Emperour and haue not concealed that which I thought on Gods behalfe O diuine Prelate and speech to be continually remembred to all succeeding Bishops of all ages But ô God! whether is that gentle and humble confession banished out of our world to which this threatning and insolent speech against Kings and Emperors hath by little and little succeeded We being placed in the supreme throne of iustice possessing the supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the vniuersall earth ouer all Peoples Countries Nations which is committed to vs not by humane but by diuine ordinance doe declare will command c. which word it is plaine euen by this that they are false and vaine because the Pope hath neither spirituall nor temporall power ouer vnbeleeuing Princes and People as Bellarmine with very good reason sheweth in his bookes of the Bishop of Rome These and such like fashions as these who will they not driue into amazement and wonder at so great a change of the Popes state and gouernment or doe they not giue to all men iust cause to enquire wherefore the former Popes in the most flowrishing age of the Church acknowledged themselues to be the seruants subiects and vassals of Princes and obeied their authority in temporall matters when as they notwithstanding were ouer them in spirituall and our later Popes professe themselues to be Lords of all Kings Princes Countries and Nations In very truth this matter doth giue no small occasion to many learned men and good Catholikes to doubt of the iustnesse of this change yea indeed to beleeue that a temporall gouernement so great and so absolute had his beginning in the persons of Popes not from God omnipotent but from the impotent ambition of certaine men and that it was not in the beginning conferred from heauen vpon Peter by the Lord Christ but was vsurped by certaine successors of Peter many ages after according to the fashion of the world that is certaine Popes hauing a massed huge store of wealth and riches and fostering their blind ambition and sury by little and little challenged that greatnesse to themselues whereby they laboured and stroue that it might be lawfull for them to take away and bestow what soeuer Kingdomes and Principalities are in the world Sure they were men and as other men are sometimes too greedy of vanity as was he who only for the malice he bare against Philip the Faire King of France set forth a decretall constitution which brought foorth so many scandalls so many dangers that it deserued foorthwith to be abrogated by Boniface his successor Now the admirable and miserable assentation of certaine flatterers gaue increase and nourishment to that vice in them who by their fond and foolish assertions such as now these Bozian fancies are affirmed that all things were lawfull for the Pope and that by Gods law all things were subiect to him Whereby we may maruaile the lesse if many of them did so far forget their Bishoplike and Apostolike modesty that through a desire to enlarge their power they encroched vpon other mens borders Of whom Gaguinus a learned man and religious taxing by the way an authority so far spread and vsurped as he calls it Therefore so great saith he is their height and state that making small reckoning of Kings they glory that they may doe all things Neither hath any in my time come to the Popedome who hauing once got the place hath not forthwith aduanced his nephewes to great wealth and honor And long before Gaguinus S. Bernard Doth not in these dates ambition more then deuotion weare the thresholds of the Apostles vpon this occasion Platina In this manner dieth that Boniface who endeuoured to strike terror rather then religion into Emperors Kings Princes Nations Peoples who also laboured to giue Kingdomes and to take them away to famish men and to reduce them at his owne pleasure And the same Gaguinus in another place Such an end of his life had Boniface the disdainer of all men who little remembring the precepts of Christ indeuoured to take away and to bestow Kingdomes at his pleasure when as he knew well enough that he stood in his place here in earth whose kingdome was not of this world nor of earthly matters but of heauenly who also had procured the Popedome by subtelty and wicked practise and kept Caelestinus in prison while he liued a most holy man of whom he receiued honor CHAP. IV. NOw I do chiefly find two things which seem to haue giuen vnto the Popes the opportunity to arrogate so great power to themselues The one is the very great honor which as indeed there was reason was giuen to the chiefe Pastor of soules by Princes and christian people and yet ought to be giuen to him and the forestalled and setled opinion of the sanctity of that sea of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul which is conspicuous and excelleth amongst all men in all spirituall honor and authority and in that respect hath been beyond all other most increased and honored with wealth and riches By these meanes all men were very easily perswaded to beleeue that neither the Pope in regard of his holinesse would challenge to himselfe any authority which did not appertaine vnto him and also that it was not lawfull for a christian man in any manner to disobey the Popes commandements Whereby it came to passe that sundry Popes whose mindes were too much addicted to ambition and vaine glory embouldned and hartned through the confidence of this so great reuerence and affection of men towards them drew to themselues this power ouer Kings which was vtterly vnknowen to the first successors of Peter The which also passed the more currant by reason of the preoccupate and now engrafted conceipt of the people and ignorant folke who being possessed of this opinion of holinesse did verily beleeue that the Pope could not erre either in word or deed and also by the writings of certaine cleargy men catholikes and Canonists who either erring through ignorance of the truth or wholly resolued into flattery of their Prince the Pope of whom they did
depend did heape and lay vpon his only person all the power which is in the vniuersall world with these allurements and inuitations the Popes who of their owne accord ran with speed enough toward honor and greatnesse were now much more enflamed as it were with certaine new firebrands of ambition and aspiring thoughts For all how many soeuer held that sea lawfully gouerned the Church with an authority equall to Peter but not all of them burning with the zeale of Peter gouerned it with equall disposition to him Nay I can not write it without griefe of heart it is certaine that many crept into that place by violence and villany others did breake into it and defiled the most holy Chaire with the filthinesse of their liues and behauiour others also who were aduanced to the height of that dignitie burned with an ambitious desire of ruling and out of their emulation and enuie against secular Kings and Princes endeuoured by all deuise and cunning to enlarge the bounds of their gouernment which in the beginning was meerely spirituall with the encrease of temporall Iurisdiction and authoritie Which affectation although at the first diuers supposed to be a grace and ornament to that great dignitie which the Vicar of Christ in earth and the successor of blessed Peter doth hold yet when some of them grew to that insolencie that they supposed it lawfull for them not onely to throw downe Kings from their Thrones but also to giue away great and goodly kingdomes for reward nay for a pray and to grant them to any that would seaze vpon them then surely there was no reasonable man but hee greatly misliked that vnreasonable pride of minde and either shed teares or conceiued great anger at the same Who was there at that time that did not either mourne inwardly or gnash his teeth in his head when that most proud Pope whom we mentioned before presumed so arrogantly to depriue that most mightie Monarch Philip the Faire of his kingdome and to bestow it together with the Empire vpon Albert Duke of Austria And that for no other reason in the world but because the King had laid his Legate by the heeles for threatning him in so saucie manner as he did as though by that Act the King of France whom a little before Innocent the 3 had ingeniously confessed that he had no superiour in temporall matters he had resigned his kingdome to the Pope as Client and Feudaire to him for so he denoūceth to the King by the Archdeacon of Narbona that the kingdome of Fraence was escheted to the Church of Rome for his Contumacie and violating of the law of Nations which speach of his what doth it else imply but that this kingdome in all mens iudgement the most free and flourishing kingdome of the world and by example and precedent thereof all other Christian kingdomes are as Benefices and Feudes of the Church of Rome and euen of the Pope himselfe seeing they could not otherwise escheate to that Church for Contumacie felonie as they tearme it vnlesse the direct temporall Dominion and fee of those kingdomes were in the same Church The other occasion of affecting so great a temporall Iurisdiction was presented by the sword of Excommunication the principall bulwarke of the spirituall gouernment which was so great terror to the world that the people durst neither neglect nor contemne the Popes curses being armed fortified howsoeuer by right or by wrong with the thunderbolt of Excommunication and this voice did vsually sound out of Pulpits That euery Excommunication although it were vniust was to be feared and that it belonged only to the Pope to iudge whether it were iust or vniust Besides that also that a man ought neither to eat nor to haue any Commerce with Excommunicate persons With which warnings and threatnings the Subiects of Princes excommunicate being for the most part terrified did fall from their Obedience and that which in Euils of this Nature was the worst of all the Pope partly by threatning of the like Curses partly by perswasions and gifts raised other Princes against a Prince that had been excommunicate by him For this cause those Princes vpon whom this malice of the Popes did sit so hard being wrapped in so many dangers on euery side and exposed to such a hazard of their estate made choise rather to pacific an angry Pope with the submission of their Crowne and Scepter and to redeeme their vexations then for their owne particular to embroyle all the world and to set all a fire with sedition and armes This short and compendious way had Popes to exanimate and daunt Kings and Princes with feare and almost to obtaine a victorie without striking stroke Notwithstanding many Princes of good resolution withstood such attempts and proffers of Popes and that so stiffely that the mischiefe which followed thereon turned rather to the Popes hinderance then the Prince But in this place the Reader may please to be aduertised that this Opinion which was so rife in euery mans mouth That euery Excommunication is to be feared ought to be vnderstood with this exception without that it manifestly appeare that it is vniust for then it is neither to be regarded nor feared so as the partie excommunicate be free from contempt and presumption for then it workes backwards and hurts not him against whom it is cast but him from whom it is cast Of which sort that Excommunication seemeth to be which is charged vpon Subiects because they obey their King or Prince being excommunicate in those things which belong to temporall Iurisdiction and doe not repugne the Commandements of God as shall hereafter be declared in a more conuenient place Besides neither is that alwaies true That we ought not to haue commerce or eat meate with Excommunicate persons for in this case it is not true where the danger is apparant least by such a separation some great mischiefe arise in the Church as vsually it doth when a Prince is excommunicate if his Subiects forbeare to communicate with him for there is neuer any Prince so much forlorne who cannot finde friends and clients by whose aide and armes hee may maintaine his cause although it be neuer so vniust with great hurt both to Church and common-weale whereof both in the memorie of our Forefathers and in our owne age there haue beene lamentable examples in Christian countries where I say any such thing is feared a separation of bodies is not necessarie But it is enough to be seuered from such in heart to be distinguished by life and manners for the preseruation of Peace and Unitie which is to bee preserued for the health of those which are weake as S. Austine excellently teacheth whereby it seemeth to follow that the Pope doth very vnaduisedly who forbids the Subiects communion and societie with their Prince so oft as no small both diuision and confusion hangeth ouer Church and Common-wealth yea that in such a Case