is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
hath chosen the weake things of the world to confound the strong knowing that his Church only stood in need of spirituall armes did so from the beginning furnish her with them that she ouercame all humane power and might so as it might be said truly a Domino factum est illud est mirabile in oculis nostris S. Bernard writeth excellently as hee doth alwaies to Eugenius the Pope This is Peter who was not at any time knowen to walke clad in silkes or adorned with precious stones not couered with gold nor caried on a white steed nor waited on with a guard of souldiers nor compassed with troups of seruants attending on him and yet he thought that without these that wholesome Commandement might be discharged Siamas me pasce oues meas heerein thou hast succeeded not to Peter but to Constantine Therefore although the temporall power whereof we speake may seeme to men to be necessarie for the Church yet to God it seemed neither necessarie nor profitable peraduenture for that reason which the successe of matters and experience it selfe hath taught the posteritie least the Apostles and their successors trusting on humane authoritie should more negligently intend spirituall matters and should chiefly place their hope in armes and in a temporall authoritie and might which they ought to settle in the power of the word of God and in his singular helpe And indeed if a man would take a view in Storie of the state of the Church from the passion of Christ to this day he shall see altogether that she grew very soone and flourished very long vnder Bishops that were content with their owne authoritie that is with spirituall iurisdiction who being the Disciples of the humilitie of Christ iudged that the onely strength to defend the Church did consist in the power of preaching the Gospell and the diligent obseruation of Ecclesiastike Discipline without any mention of temporall power And againe â—â—om the time that certaine Popes went about to annex and adioine a soueraigne temporall gouernment to that spiritual soueraigntie which they had that the Church decased euery day both in the number of beleeuers and behauiour and vertue of gouernours and that same seueritie of the ancient discipline being either remitted or to speake more truely being omitted that many Ministers of the Church discharged their places more slothfully and carelesly then before I omit that if these mens reasons were good it would follow by contraries that the temporall common wealth as they speake hath power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the soueraigne Prince of the Ecclesiastike common wealth because It ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe in order to her end and to haue all power necessary to attaine to her end But the power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the Prince Ecclesiastike is necessary to the temporall end because otherwise wicked Ecclesiasticall Princes may trouble the state and quiet of a temporall common wealth and hinder the end of the ciuill gouernment as indeed diuerse Popes haue been causes of much vnquietnesse Therefore the temporall Common-wealth hath this power The consecution is vtterly false and absurd for a temporall Prince as he is such a one hath no spirituall power and therefore the other is false too to which this by analogie is a consequent But as we vse to speake dare absurdum non est soluere argumentum Therefore I doe answer otherwise to the former part of this second reason That here be not two common weales as he supposeth but one only wherein there be two powers or two Magistrates the Ecclesiastike and the Politike whereof each hath those things which he doth of necessity require to attaine his end the one his spirituall the other his temporall iurisdiction and that neither this iurisdiction is necessary to that power nor that for this Otherwise we must confesse that each power is destitute of her necessary meanes then when they were seuered as sometimes they were which I haue already shewed to be very false as well out of the end of the temporall or ciuill gouernment at it is such as by the state of the Church being established vnder heathen and infidell Princes According to this manner in one and the same ciuill policie I meane in one City or kingdome many magistrates are found inuested with diuerse offices power and authority who gouerne the common weale committed to them in parts euery one of whom receiueth from the King or common wealth necessary power to attaine the end of their charge so as none of them may or dare inuade and arrogate to themselues the iurisdiction and rule of an other If the Consuls want any part of the Tribunes power or the Tribunes any of the Consular iurisdiction it can not be said therefore that both haue need of an others power to compasse their ends for each office according to the ground of the first institution is perfect and furnished with all necessary authority for the execution of his charge Or to bring forth more known examples As in one kingdome and vnder one King there are two great offices whereof the one the Chancellor the other the Constable hath by commission from the King the one hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the speciall charge of the law and iustice the other the managing of armes and the gouernment of all military discipline committed to him and each of them according to the quality and condition of his office is absolute and receiueth from the King all authority necessary for the execution of his charge and the compassing of his end Neither if peraduenture one of them either of negligence or iniury doe hinder the course of the other may he that is so hindred by his proper authority disanull his office or vsurpe his iurisdiction or to be short enforce him to amend his fault but by lawfull meanes granted him by commission from the King but it is requisite that each complaine to the King of others abuse of whom they haue receiued their authority so distinguished in offices and function that he may right him that is wronged and determine by his owne power and iudgement the diuision of the whole cause Now so long as these officers doe agree in the kingdome the one maintaines an others authority and vseth of his owne to supply that which is wanting in the other But if a Country-man to auoid iudgement of law doe depart into the Campe to the Army the aide of the Martiall at armes being required he is wont to be sent backe to the place from whence he fled and of the contrary if one that forsakes his Coloures shall slip into the City the City Magistrate being requested by the Magistrate at armes will by and by see him conueighed to the Campe to be punished for his misdemeanour But where they doe disagree they giue those wounds to the Common-wealth which the Prince onely can helpe and cure because
vse a temporall authority euen ouer them who haue receiued authoritie ouer others And if any Bishop may doe that much more the Prince of Bishops Thus he And this example also is very farre from the matter in question wherein appeareth neither mention nor so much as any token of a temporall authority of a Bishop ouer an Emperour or any thing else whereby it may be concluded by any probable argument that such an authority doth belong to a Bishop but wholy belongeth to that spirituall authority of a Bishop which we both in heart acknowledge and confesse with the mouth that the pope hath ouer all Christians of what order or place so euer they be Ambrose excommunicated the Emperour for an offence committed by the iniust slaughter of many men doth not this belong to the spirituall iurisdiction of the Church which at this time Ambrose did exercise by his Episcopall authority But he could not excommunicate saieth he vnlesse he had vnderstood and iudged of that cause before although it were criminall and belonged to the externall Court Yes he might de facto as vnaduised Priests doe whome I haue seene sometimes send out an excommunication without tendring of the cause but de iure he ought not otherwise he should haue beene an iniust iudge if he had punished the delinquent party without hearing of the cause But let it be so he vnderstood the cause and iudged him worthy of censure and therefore did excommunicate the Emperour what then But he could not vnderstand and iudge of such a cause saith hee vnlesse also hee had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an Externall Court Alas wee are catched in a snare vnlesse wee beware this peece of sophistry there lurketh in this assertion an exceeding cunning deceit by these words In an Externall Court A Court is twofold Politique or Ciuill and Ecclesiasticke or Spirituall The ciuill Court is wholy externall the Ecclesiasticke is subdiuided into externall and internall The externall Court Ecclesiasticke is wherein the causes belonging to the notice of the Church are openly handled and iudged and if they be criminall punishment is taken of them by ExcoÌ„munication interdiction suspension depositioÌ„ or by other means and oftentimes both the temporall and spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iudge doe heare the same crime euen in the externall Court but each of them in his proper Court and to impose diuers penalties as the ciuill Iudge taketh knowledge of adultery vt sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur The Iudge Eclesiastique also taketh knowledge who hath the care of the soule to admonish the offender of his fault and if he persist in offending to chastise him with spiritualll punishments But the internall Court of the Church which is called the Court of the soule the Court of Poenitencie the Court of Conscience is that wherein the Priest takes notice and iudgeth of the sins reuealed to him by the conscience and in his discretion doth enioine him Poenitency according to the quality of the sinne For now the common opinion is that Poenitential constitutions are arbitrary that not only the Bishop but also any discreete Confessor may regularly moderate and mitigate them in the Court of the soule If therefore Bellarmine by forum externum do vnderstand the Ecclesiasticall Court which is content with spirituall paines onely wee grant all which hee saith For Ambrose was the lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in that Court and that he openly declared in deed and in effect when as hee did excommunicate him But when this is set down and granted there can nothing bee gathered from hence to confirm the temporall authority of Bishop or Pope because aswell the iudgement as the punishment was spirituall But if Bellarmine by forum externum vnderstand the ciuill Court it is most false which he propoundes for as the powers ecclesiasticke and ciuill are distinguished of God so are their Courts dictinct their iudgements distinct For the same Mediator of God and men Christ Iesus hath seuered the offices of each power by their proper actions and distinct dignitus Surely hee doth Ambrose great wrong if he thinke that after hee had obtained the Bishopricke hee heard and iudged criminall causes in a ciuill Court Ambrose then was no lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall ciuil Court which is inough to proue that hee could not iudge or punish the Emperour with any temporall punishment But you will say Ambrose heard and iudged of the slaughter It is true but not as a ciuill and temporall Iudge J say I did not take knowledge of the crime for the same end for which the secular Iudge doth that place out of Aristotle is very good that many may take knowledge of one and the same subiect diuersly and after a diuers manner end and intention Jt is the same right angle which the Geometrician searcheth to vnderstand and the handicrafts man to worke by it So it is the same crime whereof the Laicke Iudge taketh notice that hee may punish the offender by death banishment the purse or by some other temporall punishment and which the ecclesiasticall Iudge knoweth that for the quality of the offence he may enioine spirituall punishment and Penitence At coegit Imperatorem adlegem politicum ferendam viz. he constrained the Emperour to make a ciuill law and therefore hee vsed a temporall authority ouer him A â—est If hee constrained him by what power by feare of what did hee constraine him The summe of the story will teach vs that which is thus Ambrose had cast on Theodosius the band of excommunication from whence when the Emperour desired to be deliuered the graue Prelate denies to doe it before such time as hee see in him some fruit of repentance what paenitence saith he haue you shewed after so hainous a crime or with what medicine haue you cured your grieuons wounde The Emperour answered that it is the office of the Bishop to temper and lay a medicine to the wound that is to say to enioine poenitencie to the sinner but of the Poenitent to vse those medicines which are giuen him that is to say to performe the poenitency enioined vnto him Ambrose hearing this for poenitence and satisfaction he imposed vpon the Emperour the necessity to make this law whereof we speake which being made and enacted for presently the Emperour commaunded the law to bee ordained Ambrose did loose him fram his bonds of excommunication Therefore in this case Ambrose vsed no temporall authoritie against Theodosius but whatsoeuer it was he commaunded by vertue and power of his spirituall iurisdiction neither did the Emperour obey this Prelate for feare of any temporall punishment for if hee would not haue obeied but as wicked Princes sometimes doe had contemned both the excommunication and the absolution Ambrose could goe no further at all But because the godly Prince was carefull for his soule lest hee beeing bound too long with this spirituall chaine might through the long imprisonment gather filthinesse
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
out of 〈◊〉 his house and the friends of the Emperor to aâ—cend into it CHAP. X. NO◠〈◊〉 to thâ— Bishop Frisingensis a man most 〈…〉 as I said and almost an eye witnesse of these things Hee both in the place produced by vs and also in others bewraieth plainly that he allowed not that decree of the Pope touching the deposing of the Emperour but that he holds it to be new insolent and vniust For first for the noueltie and insolencie of that Act he writeth thus I read and read againe the Actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and doe finde no where that any of them before this was excommunicate or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome And againe in the first booke touching the gestes of Frederike Gregorie the VII saith he who then held the Bishoprike of the Citie of Rome decrees that the Emporour as one forsaken of his friends should be shaken with the sword of Excommunication The noueltie and strangenesse of this action did so much more vehemently affect the Empire already mooued with indignation because before that time neuer any such sentence was knowen to haue been published against the Princes of the Romanes Now he declares the iniustice and iniquitie of the fact in diuers respects First because amongst those euils and mischiefes which did spring out of that decree of the Pope he reckons the mutation and defection both of Pope and King that Pope was set aboue Pope as King aboue King by which wordes he shewes that both of them by a like right or ratherby a like wrong was made that as Pope was set vpon Pope by the Emperour vniustly so also was King vniustly set vpon King by the Pope Then in that he saith Because therefore the kingdome in his Prince c. what doth that imply other then that by reason of the Empire violated in the Prince the Church was violated in the Bishop or else for the kingdome wounded in the Prince the Church was wounded in the Bishop Betweene which seeing he makes no difference of right or wrong and both of them could not be done iustly it followeth that hee thinketh both of them was done vniustly Moreouer hee calleth as well the defection of Rodolphus whom the Pope had created Emperour as the insurrection of Henrie his sonne of the Excommunicate Father I say he calleth them both openly and simply plaine Rebellion which surely he would neuer haue done if hee had beleeued that Henry was lawfully depriued of his Empire for there can bee no rebellion but against a Superiour and therefore it could not be against an Heretike who if he were justly depriued and deposed was no more a Superiour Therefore he thus writeth of Rodolphus And not long after the two foresaid Captaines Guelfe and Rodolphus rebelling against their Prince vpon what occasion it is vncertaine are ioyned with the Saxons And a little after But the Bishop of Rome Gregorie who at this time as it hath beere said stirred vp Princes against the Emperour writ his letters secretly and openly to all that they should create an other Emperour But heere we must know by the way that he saith vpon what occasion it is doubtfull that it is to be vnderstood of a priuate occasion as many are wont to spring betweene a King and his Nobles as in our age betweene Borbonius and king Francis the Guise and Henry Orange and Philip for each of them both Guelfo and Rodolphus pretended a publike occasion that is to say the furious behauiour of Henricus and also for that hee was excommunicate and deposed from his kingdome by the Pope as writeth Albert Schafnaburgensis and so they couered priuate hatred as Rebels vse to doe with a publique pretence But touching the Sonne our Bishop Frisingensis writeth in this manner Afterward againe in the yeere following when the Emperour celebrated the Natiuitie of the Lord at Moguntia Henry his sonne enters into rebellion against his Father in the parts of Noricum by the counsell of Theobald a Marques and Berengarius an Earle vnder the colour of Religion because his Father was excommunicate by the Bishop of Rome and hauing drawen to his partie certaine great Personages out of the East part of France Alemania and Baioaria he enters into Saxonie a country and Nation easily to bee animated against their King Heere let the Reader obserue two things One that this Author a man notable for knowledge and pietie calleth this insurrection of Henry the sonne against Henry the Father a Rebellion the other that both heere and in other places he euer calls Henry the Father King and Emperour although he had been now about fiue and twentie yeeres excommunicate and depriued of his Kingdome by the Popes sentence and first Rodolphus and then 〈◊〉 were set into his place by the Pope and the Rebels whereby he shewes sufficiently that hee thinkes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Kings or to determine of their temporall gouernment and therfore that the Decree of Gregorie was neither iust nor lawfull otherwise neither Henry could haue been called King nor his aduersaties Rebels without iniurie to the Bishop of Rome There is also another place of the same Authors wherin he 〈◊〉 the same more plainly that is that the Pope by that excommunication and abdication hath taken no right of his Kingdome from Henry for after that he had related that 〈◊〉 who was sonne in law to Rodolâ—us whom as hath been said the Pope had created King hauing killed his Father in law and vsurped the Dukedome of Swâ—uia as granted to him by his Father in law and one the other side that Henrie who had been deposed by the Popes sentence had granted the same Dukedome to a certaine Nobleman of Sweuia whose name was Frederike who forced Bertolphus to conditions of peace ad ex 〈…〉 Ducaius he addeth This Berâ—ode although in this businesse he yeeldeth both to the Empire and to Iustice yet he is reported to haue beene a reâ—olute and a valiant man Behold how he vsing no manner of Circuition affirmes that both Empire and Iustice stands on his part against whom the Pope had long before passed the sentence of Dâ—position but not with Rodolphus being called to the Kingdome by the authoritie of the Pope with this Epigraphe now twise related aboue Petra dedit Petro c. Lastly seeing he seriously saith and teacheth That Kings haue none aboue them but God whom they may feare doth he not euen by this conclusion teach vs that the Bishop of Rome hath no temporall authoritie whereby he may dispose in any manner of their kingdomes and gouernments And surely although there were nothing else for which that hainous action of Pope Gregorie might be misliked surely so many lamentable and desastrous euents so many fatall and wofull accidents which springing out of that iurisdiction which was then first vsurped and practised by the Pope against the Emperour afflicted the whole Empire full fiue and
twentie yeeres and rent the Church asunder with a continuall schisme may be an argument to vs that that Decree was not made by a diuine inspiration but by an humane passion nor that it proceeded from an ordinarie Iurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolike but either from an extraordinarie ambition or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeale of him that held the Sea For it is not likely that God who is the Author of Iustice and protector of the Church and who hath made the first executions of the spirituall power of the Church exceeding fearefull by present miracles and horrible effects would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinarie assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authoritie and power of his Church especially seeing he was with so many praiers inuocated by the Bishop for his helpe and the Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication in these wordes Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles and by your authoritie interpoâ—ed confirme that which I haue said that all men may now at the last understand if you can binde and loose in heauen that you are also as well able it earth to take away and giue Empires Kingdomes Principalities and whatsoeuer else mortall men may haue Let Kings now learne by this Kings example and all the Princes of the world what you are able to doe in heauen and how much you are in fauour with God and heereafter let them be afraid to contemne the commandements of holy Church But execute with speed vpon Henrie that all men may vnderstand that this Child of iniquitie falleth out of his Kingdome not by chance but by your care Yet this I would intreat at your handes that he being led by repentance may at your request obtaine fauour of the Lord in the day of iudgement These and such like praiers being powred out to God and the Princes of the Apostles and Curses and Imprecations in solemne maner cast vpon Henrie who would not thinke that God who by his Apostles preserues his Church with a continuall protection would not easily suffer himselfe to be intreated and would not presently heare this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authoritie of the Church to be made manifest if any such authoritie had belonged to the Church Wheras notwithstanding cleane contrarie euery thing fell out crosse and vnhappie against the Pope and against the authors and fautors of the Popes partie whilest Henrie in the meane time triumphed and held his Empire still for that which he suffered from his sonne at last after fiue and twentie yeeres vnder a shew of religion as Frisingensis saith that makes little or nothing to this matter This was a pretext onely for a wicked sonne who was sicke of the Father before the time but the true cause was ambition and the burning desire of rule quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children and contrariwise as wee haue shewed at large other where One said excellently well patris longâ—oâ— vit a malo filio seruit us videtur CHAP. XI BY this as I suppose it is euident enough that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other wicked Princes because she then distrusted her might and strength nor because she could not reduce them to order without the great hurt of the people for indeed she might with more ease and lesse hurt to the people haue chastised those ancient Princes Then not onely Henry the fourth from whose businesse so lasting a schisme did spring but either Otho the fourth or Frederick the second or Philip Pulcher or Lewes the eleuenth or Iohn Nauarre or others against whom the Bishops being puffed vp with the successe of their affaires drew foorth their Sentences of Excommunication and depriuation of Kingdomes not for heresie nor for the euill gouernment of State nor at the request of the subiects but euen inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections I meane their priuate hatred To conclude not for that the state of the Church in that age would haue her Bishops more readie than in this time to suffer martyrdome for then the Church was in very safe estate and as we say sailed in the hauen as hauing been now anciently founded vpon the Apostolike constitutions and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs Yea such then was the state of the Church that there was much lesse need for Bishops to be readie for martyrdome than at this time for that so great a multitude then being as it were sprinckled with the fresh blood of the martyrs did in a maner sauour of nothing but martyrdome that the Pastour was no lesse admonished of his dutie by the example of the flocke than the seuerall persons of the people by the example of the Pastour But now ô lamentable case the case is quite otherwise the Church is tossed with most grieuous tempests and only not ouerwhelmed as yet with the furie of heretikes manie euen of those who desire to be called Catholikes being so affected that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles much lesse vndergoe death for true religion wherefore that life and heat may be giuen to that lukewarmnesse and that men might be stirred vp to the readiest way and as it were the shortest cut for their health who seeth not that there is need of Bishops to shew the way both by word and example and both to compose them themselues and to exhort others rather to martyrdome than to armes and insurrections to which we are prone by nature Who would not iudge that the fatherly pietie of Clement the eight ioyned with excellent wisdome whereby he endeuoureth to reduce to anâ—itie and to keepe in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church than the martiall furies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleuenth wherby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italie France Germanie Spaine and all 〈…〉 together by the cares 〈…〉 be thus surely we must needs confâ—â—◠〈…〉 ancient fathers of the Church 〈…〉 fault in that they did not only suffer 〈…〉 they might easily those guiltie and 〈…〉 of the saith but also courtcously reuerenced them and honoured them with regall titles and dignities or els we must needs thinke that they spared those maner of Princes for the reuerence of Maiestie the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone or surely we must beleeue that besides the reasons deliuered by the aduersaries there is yet some better behinde which none hitherto hath brought forth nor euer will as I suppose For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous worke which he writ against Kings to elude the â—orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers As though saith he
because they are separated not by humane but by diuine power who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church by translation deposition or cession For quoth he not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome who beareth the person not of a pure man but of the true God in earth weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church dissolueth not by humane but rather by diuine authoritie Thus he These manner of speeches and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour that they suppose whatsoeuer is done by the Pope is done by God himselfe because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning I confesse that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words nor more hard for the sense that in expounding the same the wits of all Interpreters doe faile For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly plainly and cleerely then this That not man but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue Or what followeth more rightly of any thing then this of that position Ergo that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie which is consummate carnall copula betweene maried persons And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion and therefore wee must confesse that that whereof it followeth is false also because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true Which when Hostiensis had obserued when I say hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason But that reason quoth he sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it is not sufficient vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood for by that it would follow that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie But for all that Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth For that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie because as he saith before carnall copulation by a common dissent it may be dissolued the Popes authoritie comming betweene arg cap. 2 cap. expublico de conuers coniugat Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason for as touching the rescripts alleged by him and if there be any such like they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus in which case there is no neede of the Pope authoritie to interuene or any pontificiall dispensation but that they are warranted by meere right and the common helpe of the law who in that manner doe procure a separation and breake off matrimonie But that a matrimonie ratified and not yet consummate may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope by the common dissent of the parties that wee are to denie constantly and that according to the most learned Diuines For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or essence of matrimonie for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction and consent of mindes whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other But the procreation of children and the bed-fellowship for that cause is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie but to the end Hence is it said by the heathen that Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit Not the fellowship of the bedde but the consent of the mindes makes mariages And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions Otherwise surely that first mariage which God instituted in Paradise was not a mariage vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence began to prouide for issue then which what can be more absurd Moreouer there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church no authoritie of Fathers no decretall Epistle of the Pope in a word there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour matrimonie ratified although not consummate Quos Deus conâ—unxit homo ne separet Nay and hee cannot except vnlesse it be true that they who being contracted are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie are not ioined by God But there is in this matter as in others so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law that they are not ashamed to auerre that not onely matrimonie ratified but not consummate and that against the common iudgement of the Diuines but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction may be dissolued by the Pope aswell as by God himselfe which if it should bee true how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them who haue grace and power with the Pope or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes being blinded with desire of money J leaue to others to iudge But there is no cause why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons with words of the present time Contracted may in no case bee dissolued except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion For it is not credible that so learned and godly a Bishop had either so sodainely forgot himselfe or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius CHAP. XXIX NOw if any aske my opinion and interpretation of them I am not afraid to say as in a matter of this obscurity that I am at a stand notwithstanding that I doe thinke that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that the mind of this good Bishop and the sense of the wordes doe differ which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning or do omit some necessary particle or exception for to make the constitution plaine and entire for otherwise it is not likely that hee who denieth that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke that he may haue propertie of goods or marry a wife would affirme that the Pope may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate What is the matter then I will speake what I thinke I haue obserued that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine that although hee compare each mariage in this that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely yet where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop and Vicar of Iesu Christ he conioineth
them together no more nor makes mention of carnall matrimony but onely of spirituall which not deemed to be separated by man but by God himselfe then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered not out of humane but rather out of diuine authority by translation deposition or cession by which silence and omission of carnall Matrimony he doth sufficiently implie that in the manner of separation it doth differ and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this viz. the carnall as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner God hath reserued to his own iudgement the dissolution as well of the carnall as of the spirituall matrimony notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter the necessity or commoditie of the Churches c. may dissolue them which when he doth not man but God doth separate whose Person the Pope beareth in earth Now why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage and not a carnall also the reason is plaine and easie because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe and euerie way doth belong to the ordination gouernement and oeconomie of the Church which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage seeing they are not able without it to execute and discharge the office committed to them And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes themselues as Hierarches that is spirituall Gouernors doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters persons of the Church wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same who hath by name committed this dispensation and procuration to them But carnall matrimony was instituted not for the ordination of the Church but onely for procreation of issue and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature and to be common to all nations and countries neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church but that it is a Sacrament in the new law containing the my sterie of God and the soule of Christ and the Church And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors the power to dissolue the same They haue inough to discerne iudge if it be a mariage that they may know if it bee a sacrament Therefore although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage viz by remouing all impediments which doe arise out of the positiue law and ecclesiasticall constitutions and giue order that it may duly and rightly be contracted which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme yet when as either through the common law permitting or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited it was contracted hath no power for any cause in the world to relaxe and dissolue the same Neither doth it belong to the matter that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall we see often that separation is made of those persons as haue liued a long time together vnder the conceit and shew of mariage For neither the Pope in that case nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority doth dissolue any matrimony but by his iudgement declareth that the matrimony which indeede was contracted de fasto or was falsly supposed to be a mariage was no mariage at all enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together to depart one from an other and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance But this is not to dissolue Matrimony or to separate persons lawfully ioined as concerning the bond of mariage Whereby it is euident that both Innocentius the Interpreter who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name and also Ioh Andr. who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined let no man separate Of their owne authority say they but man doth not separate carnall matrimony when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope but God himselfe by whose authority those constitutions were made As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons and make a nullitie in the law because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted to breake or loose the band no constitution either of Pope or church can do Otherwise the Apostle in those words The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth but if her husband doe sleepe she is free I say he did ill to make mention of death onely if shee may be free by some other meanes viz. the Popes constitutions the mariage it selfe being dissolued And now since these things are thus it is time to returne from this by-way into which the vnreasonable flattery and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs into that path from whence wee haue digressed CHAP. XXX IT is now positiuely set downe and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters that the Pope cannot make grace to any of the naturall and diuine law or as we vsually speake now a dayes cannot dispense against the law of nature and of God and grant that that may bee done without guilt which God and nature haue forbidden or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done and this not onely the Diuines but also the Canonists of the better sort doe very earnestly maintaine Therefore this is a most grounded Axâ—ome whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter Surely we do admit his proposition which is That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues that hee may driue them away by all the meanes he is able Wee admit also the Assumption That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God are heretickes Where hee concludeth in this manner Ergo If a Prince of a sheepe or ramme turne Wolfe that is to say of a Christian turne an hereticke the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also may charge the people that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects Surely a very vnsound collection In stead whereof in good Logicke should bee put this conclusion Ergo If any Prince of a sheepe or a ramme turne Wolfe the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can For this ariseth rightly out of the former
reason before related by vs is by him propounded in these words A shepheard may shedde and shut vp the furious rammes which destroy the flocke But a Prince is a furious ramme destroying the flocke when he is in faith a Catholicke but so wicked as hee doth much hurt Religion and the Church as if he should sell Bishoprickes spoile Churches c. Ergo the Pastor of the Church may reclude him he should haue rather said exclude him for recludere is aperire or to reduce him into the rancke of the sheepe Surely wee doe admitte this argument and whatsoeuer beside is by necessary consecution inferred thereof now no other thing can be inferred but that it is lawfull for the Pastor of the Church by which name we vnderstand the Pope in this place to expell an euill Prince out of the Lords fold and to exclude him that he rest not in the Lords sheepe-cotes with the rest of the Christian flocke that is to say by Ecxommunication to cast him out of the Communion of the Church of the Saints and to depriue him of all the benefites of regeneration in Christ and to deliuer him to Satan vntill hee make lawfull satisfaction for his offence and contumacie And this punishment is wholy spirituall and ecclesiastick and the greatest of all other which the Church hath which he cannot goe beyond no not against a priuate person vnlesse it be to go to the Prince ciuill as being superiour to the offender and beseech him to punish the iniurie offered to the holy mother who for that shee is a nurse of the Church ought to chastice with corporall and ciuill punishments the offenders and rebels to the same But the Church wanteth this temporall aide when as he is the soueraigne Prince himselfe who commits that for which hee may be worthily excommunicate because he hath no superior by no law can be challenged to punishment being free and safe through the Maiestie of his gouernment Therefore although the Pastor of the Church or the Pope may by Excommunication exclude him from the flocke and so depriue him of all his spirituall benefites yet can hee take away from him none of those things which he possesseth and enioyeth by vertue of a temporall and humane interest because goods of that nature are not subiect to Ecclesiastique but to Politique lawes which are in the power of Kings And as no Christian whether Prince or priuate person can auoid the Popes iudgment in spirituall Causes so neither may any subiect of what ranke or place soeuer he be decline the iudgement of his King or Prince in temporall affaires for in that the causes of Clergie persons are committed to other then to ciuill Iudges that was granted them by the singular grace and priuiledge of Princes whereas by the common law Cleriques as wel as Laiques are subiect to the temporall authority of secular Princes And this is grounded on that reason which Bellarmine himselfe deliuers viz. That Clergie persons besides that they are Clergy persons are also Citizens and certain parts of the common wealth politique Hence it is that vnder the best and holiest Christian Princes all the causes of Clergy men as well ciuill as criminall so as they were not Ecclesiasticke were wont to bee debated before ciuill and temporall Magistrates Therefore the Clergy did owe to secular Princes this their liberty which in this point they enioy as we haue declared before in the 15. Chapter Whereby I maruaile that the same Bellarmine doth affirme that the Pope might simply by his owne authority exempt Clergy men by the Canon Law from the subiection of temporall Princes For that I may speake it with the reuerence of so great a man it is as false as false may be Because the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and interest but it should depriue if it should take away against their wils that temporall right and interest which Princes before they became Christians had ouer Clergie men Againe seeing the Pope himselfe hath obtained this exemption of his owne by no other right but by the bounty and grace of Princes For as the aduersaries confesse hee was both de iure and de facto subiect to heathen princes as other Citizens it is an absurd thing to say that he could deliuer others froÌ„ the same subiection Otherwise that might agree to him which the wicked blaspheming Iewes did vpbraid to our Sauiour Christ He hath saued others himselfe he could not saue And in this point the authority of the Fathers in Councels could not be greater then the Popes Therefore this place requireth that wee also conuince an other errour which hath sprung spread very wide out of the decrees of Counsels not diligently and aduisedly considered and which reacheth at this day I know not how farre and to what persons viz. That Councels haue freed Clergy men from the authoritie iurisdiction of Magistrates Which is as far from all truth as may be for it is no where found in any Councell that the Fathers assumed to them so much authority as to depriue secular Judges of their authority and iurisdiction ouer the Clergy or in any sort forbid them to heare and determine the causes of Clergy men being brought before them vnlesse it were after that by the singular bounty of Diuines which began from Iustintanus that priuiledge of Court was granted to Church men For when as these graue Fathers themselues which were present and presidents in Councels were subiect to temporal authority as Saint Augustine teacheth in expositione cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom. it could not bee that they should by their proper authority exempt themselues or others from that subiection Therefore wee must vnderstand that those ancient fathers of the church amongst whom the Ecclesiasticall discipline did flourish with much seuerity and sincerity which at this day is too much neglected vsed all the care and diligence that might bee that the Clergy should carry a light before the people not onely in doctrine but also in inteâ—rity of manners and innocency of life and for that cause that they admonished all Clergy men and decreed and enacted by the Canons of their councels that none of them should bring against another any ciuill or criminall complaint before a secular Iudge but that either they should compose all their controuersies among themselues by the arbitration of friends or if they would not or could not that at least they should end them by the iudgement of the Bishop And surely they ordered their matters in this manner out of the same or surely the very like aduice which S. Paul in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians gaue the Christians forbiding them that they should not draw one an other before the iudgement seates of insidell Iudges and there contend about their differences which we spake of a little before I say out of the same aduice these fathers ordained that if any thing sell out among the Clergy after the
long as the Church serued vnder heathen Princes And this is the ground of our demonstration with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner beene set down and granted that is to say That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest because hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill the Law And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith it is certaine that all Clergie men continued in the same order and ranke as farre as concerned temporall subiection wherein they were before when their Princes liued in their infidelitie because the Law of Christ depriueth no man of his particular interest as hath beene said And in that regard priuileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergie which they should not haue needed at all if the Clergie had not remained and that by absolute right as before vnder the authoritie and iurisdiction of Princes These things are so cleere and plaine and so witnessed and proued by so many testimonies and monuments that it may be thought a needlesse paines to remember them in this place or to adde any thing to them Therefore let vs see that which followeth I meane let vs see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles by a manifest demonstration and necessarie conclusion It is in no place recorded by any Writer that the Princes who haue endowed the Clergie with these priuileges and exemptions did set them so free from themselues that they should not be further subiect vnto them nor acknowledge their Maiestie or obey their Commandement Reade those things which are written of those priuileges you shall not finde the least testimonie of so great immunitie amongst them all They only granted to the Clergie that they should not bee conuented before secular Magistrates but before their proper Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Iudges Now this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authoritie of the Princes themselues or to offer preiudice to their iurisdiction and authority if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergie mens causes in cases which are not meerely spirituall Nay Princes could not nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergie liuing in their kingdomes that libertie and immunitie that they should not bee subiect to them in their temporall authoritie and when they offend bee iudged and punished by them but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principalitie and gouernment For it is a propertie inseparable to Princes to haue power to correct offenders and lawfully to gouerne all the members of the Common-wealth I meane all his Citizens and subiects with punishing and rewarding them And as in a naturall bodie all the members are subiect to the head and are gouerned and directed by it so as it must needs seeme a monstrous bodie where are seene superfluous members and such as haue no dependencie of the head euen so in this politicke bodie it is very necessarie that all the members should bee subiect to the Prince as to the head and bee gouerned by him that is to receiue reward or punishment from him according as each of them deserue in the state But the Clerickes as the aduersaries confesse besides that they are Clerickes are also Citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill Common-wealth which is true and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdome and obtaine the first place Therefore as Citizens and parts of the ciuill Common-wealth they are subiect to the Prince neither can they although the Prince would but be subiect to him in temporalties and otherwise either were he no Prince or they no Citizens Therefore it is a foolish thing to suppose and imagine that a Clergy man being conuented for any cause whatsoeuer so it be not meerely spirituall may auoid the Palace of the soueraigne Prince or of him to whom the Prince vpon certaine knowledge hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof For in that Princes doe verie seldome heare the causes of the Clergie that argueth want not of power but of disposition Hence is it I meane out of this temporall authoritie of secular Princes ouer the Clergie that in our time Charles the V. being Emperour caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colonie to appeare before him to cleere himselfe of the crimes which the Clergie and the Vniuersitie said against him and that in many places the Princes haue reserued to themselues certaine offenses of the Clergie to be specially punished and doe commit the same to the knowledge and iudicature of their officers as are those crimes which are called Priuilegiate in France as of Treason bearing of Armes counterset money peace broken and the like neither are wee to thinke that heereby any iniurie is done to the Clergie or that the Ecclesiasticall libertie is in any manner hindred or diminished Many haue Ecclesiasticall libertie in their mouthes who know not a â—ot what it is We will in another place declare more plainly what it is and in what points it consisteth Seeing these things stand thus euery man I thinke may see that all the immunitie of Clergie men as well for their persons as for their causes and goods haue proceeded from secular Princes but not as some imagine is either due by the Law of God or granted them by the Pope or Canons For that which Bellarmine bringeth both for a supplement and a reason that he might proue how that the Pope and Councels did simply exempt Clerickes from the temporall iurisdiction viz. That the Imperiall Law ought to yeeld to the Canon Law that is not generally true but then only when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticke but the subiection or immunitie of Clergie men in ciuill affaires is not a matter meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but rather ciuill and temporall in which cases the sacred Canons doe not disdaine to come after the ciuill Lawes Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after That the Pope may command the Emperour ouer those things which belong to the authoritie of the Church As if hee should say that the Pope may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church For euen by this we may discerne that this is false that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes and Officers of Princes Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church for that was no lesse before but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring Hence arose that question whether it were lawfull for Princes euery one within his territories without any iniurie to the church in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
and vncleannesse hee obeied the will of the Bishop and that hee might obtaine of him the benefite of absolution hee performed at the admonition of the Bishop a temporall office which seemed to bee profitable for the common wealth Vpon which occasion the Author of the history saith For this so great vertue both the Emperour and the Bishop were famous For I admire both the liberty of the one the obedience of the other Againe the burning of the zeale of the one and the purity of faith in the other Ambrose then constrained Theodosius iust as our Confessaries at this day doe constraine their Poenitents to whome they often deny absolution of their crime where they seriously promise that they will performe that office or burden which in place of Poenitence they lay on them when as yet they haue no temporall iurisdiction ouer them He forced him likewise euen as any of vs vseth to force his neighbour or fellow Burgesse when we deny that to him which hee desireth to be done or giuen him by vs vnlesse hee first do that which wee desire for our friends sake or our own To be short it is a common thing that a man is constrained or enforced by reason by loue by griefe by anger and by other affections and passions of the mind without any authority of temporall and spiritual iurisdiction These things standing thus it is worth the obseruation in this example that the Ecclesiasticall power doth often with feare of spirituall punishment enforce men to performe temporall duties as in this place Ambrose did the Emperour and of the contrary that the ciuill power doth many times by feare of temporall paines driue others to performe spirituall offices as when a Prince compelleth heretickes or schismaticks to returne to the Church for feare of bodily punishment or losse of goods and yet neither can the one impose temporall punishment nor the other spirituall but by accident as they say The fourth followeth The fourth saith he is of Gregory the first in the Priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus and is to bee seene in the end of the Epistles If saith he any King Prelate Bishop or person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicke authority and of our commaundement of what dignity or honour soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour If Bishop Gregory should liue at this day and vnderstand that these words of his are taken in that sense as though he had authority to depriue Kings of their honour and dignity hee would surely cry out that it is a calumnious and a wrested interpretation and that he neuer so much as dreamed of any such matter and indeed those things which in other places are left written by him doe vtterly discredite this exposition These then are the words not of a commaunder but of a curser whereby he chargeth and adiureth all kind of men that they doe not violate the priuiledge granted by him which if they shall doe that God will be the reuenger to depriue them of honour which kind of admonition and imprecation is at this day wont to bee added to the ends of the Popes Bulles and constitutions in this manner Therefore it may be lawfull for no man to in fringe this page c. or of presumption to contrary the same but of any shall presume to attempt it let him incurre the indidgnation of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul or that which is the same let him know that he shall incurre CHAP. XL. BY that which hath beene said the Reader will easily see that it is true which before I set down that there cannot bee found either in the holy Scriptures or writings of holy Fathers any printe or example of the temporall authority of the Pope and therefore that they do not well nay that they offend very greeuously who labour to strengthen an opinion most false in it selfe by arguments and examples so remote and impertinent By these meanes they deceiue the vnlearned and are derided by the learned I haue already proued very plainely that there is no force in the former examples to proue that which the aduersaries affirme And for the examples following I take lesse thought to answer For although some of them doe fit the purpose of the aduersaris and shew that Popes did sometimes vse temporall authority in the last ages of the Church notwithstanding because they containe nothing but the singular actions of Popes who no man denieth but that they were men and might commit faults and slippes after the manner of men in so much as it is now celebrated by a common Prouerbe which we remembred before out of Sotus Factum Pontificum non facit fidei articulum that is The act of the Popes doth not make an article of faith therefore touching their acts wherin they haue endeauoured to exercise such an authority the question and disputation is behinde touching the lawfulnesse thereof whether they were done lawfully yea or no Neither ought that to moue vs at all the writers of the stories who haue in their writings recorded the acts of the Popes haue added no note or touch of reprehension but rather haue allowed and commended them For I see that there were many reasons for that First because all the writers of that time were either Monkes or at the least Clergy men who tooke most care to increase and amplifie the dignity of the Popes and therefore they were very wary and heedfull not to reprehend or checke any actions of the Popes and to accuse them of iniustice Secondly for that in those times so great was the opinion of the Pope that the multitude receiued and embraced in estimation all his actions as if they had beene done by God himselfe in which respect Iohn Gerson said not without reason That the common people doth imagine the Pope as a God who hath all authority in heauen and in earth My selfe haue seene aboue fifty yeares agone in Scotland when as that Kingdome did as yet stand sound in faith and religion that the name of the Pope of Rome for so they spake Scotishly the Pape of Rome was had in such reuerence with the multitude that whatsoeuer was told them to haue beene said or done by him was esteemed of all men as an oracle and as a thing done by God himselfe Lastly for that a present danger did hang ouer their heades which danger to this day bindeth the hands and mussles the mouthes of many lest if they should write any thing which was harsh and vnpleasing to the Pope or should taxe and find fault with his actions as well the writer as his writing should forth with be stricken with the Popes curses which cannot seeme strange to those who doe know that the anger and arrogancie of Pope Sixtus V. did burne so farre that as I touched before hee had determined to destroy and quite extinguish the trim and goodly disputations of Bellarmine because hee
GVIL BARCLAII J. C. OF THE AVTHORITIE OF THE POPE WHETHER AND HOW FARRE FORTH he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber posthumus AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD for VVilliam Aspley 1611. TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD CLEMENT the 8. Pope W. Barclay wisheth health IF Rome from Peter to this day had seene such Bishops as your Holinesse is most High Father and Prelate of Christians there had been no place for this Question at this time Your Moderation and Gentlenesse answerable to your Name either had not opened any gap to this Busines or had barred the same by some graue Prouision that it should not be opened I haue here discussed the Question touching the Temporall authoritie of your See ouer Kings and Princes which hauing been canuassed with so great Troubles and so much Blood hath as oft afflicted the Church as the Princes themselues I haue also dedicated the same to you lest I might seeme either to haue shunned your Iudgement or to haue managed rather the Cause of the Kings then of the Church If I haue not pleased euery mans taste I desire them to consider That no Medicine brings Health without bitternesse It is peraduenture an odious argument to such as be scrupulous or malitious to peruert my sense and meaning which not withstanding most Holy Father I haue vndertaken partly out of the loue of the Truth partly also for that I haue been of opinion that this Authoritic is the fountaine of all those tempests wherewith Heresie tosseth your ship at this day Pope Iulius the 2. being alienated with a sudden vnkindnes did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France but also depriued Iohn King of Nauarre of his kingdome because hee assisted the French And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France but the Nauarrois hearing the Spaniard of one side and being excluded on the other side by the Mountaines of Pyrene from the helpe of France was not able to make his part good against the furie of Rome and the ambition of Spaine Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdome he retired into France where he had a large and ancient Patrimonie In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled and the Heires of Iohn King of Nauarre inflamed with their priuate hatred did very soone passe to that side which bandied against the See of Rome Therefore came Heresie first to be seattered thorow France by the partialitie of those Princes which through the fiaming fire and after through warres hath continued to this day As for Henrie the 8 King of England who doubteth that he departed not so much from the Religion as from the Pope out of his Hatred against the very same Authoritie Clemens the 7. had denounced Henrie depriued of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms and he againe conceiued an anger which peraduenture was not vniust of his part but blinde and intemperate He opened England to Heretikes by the occasion of this schisme who afterwards growing strong vnder Edward the 6 destroyed the ancient Religion Againe Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England hauing held out vnder Iames the 5 at length was attainted in the beginning of Maries raigne and presently after infected when the poison had gathered further strength So what Heresie or Heretiques soeuer are in France and Britannie at this day which is their onlie strong hold was conceiued and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporall Authothoritie as a pestilent egge Behold most holy Father how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command which like Scianus his Horse hath euer cast his Masters to the ground Therefore haue I vndertaken this worke out of my affection to Religion and Truth not to the Princes and of a sincere and humble minde haue presented the same to you the Chiefe Pastour to whom it appertaineth to iudge of leper and leper If there be any thing in these writings which you shall thinke good and profitable I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweete remembrance of so great a Witnesse But if allowing my affection yet you shall not allow my Iudgement it shall be to posteritie an argument of your Moderation that vnder you the simple libertie of Disputation hath not been preiudiciall to any Let this be an argument of your Moderation but neuer of my Obstinacie For whatsoeuer is in this businesse I leaue it to your Censure that in this booke I may seeme not so much to haue deliuered what I thinke as to haue enquired of your Holinesse what I ought to thinke Fare you well The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholike disposition to the See of Rome and his sinceritie in the handling of this question The opinion of the Diuines and Canonists touching the Popes authoritie in temporall matters and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers and a taxation of Bozius his sophistrie touching the same Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporall iurisdiction but rather inioyned Obedience to be giuen euen to Heathen Princes and a comparison betweene the ambition and vsurpation of the later Popes and humilitie of the ancient Chap. 4. That the later Popes serued themselues of two aduantages to draw to themselues this vast authoritie Temporall ouer Princes viz. partly through the great reuerence which was borne to the See of Rome partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication Chap. 5. That it cannot be proued by any authoritie either Diuine or Humane that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporall authoritie ouer any Christian Princes Chap. 6. That no instance can be giuen of any Popes of higher times that any such authoritie was vsurped and practised by them and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times in regard of the modestie and pietie of the former Chap. 7. An answere made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people coerce and chastise the olde Emperors and Kings and therefore forbare them more then now she neede to doe Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage to execute any lawfull power vpon euill Princes but she forbare to doe it in regard she knew not any such power ouer them Chap. 9. That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine that Henrie the 4. Emperour and other Christian Princes vpon whom the Popes haue practised their pretended temporall authoritie might be dealt withall more securely then the former Princes Chap. 10. The censure of the worthie Bishop Frisingens vpon the course which Gregorie the 7. tooke against Henrie the 4. Emperour and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church and vnfortunate to the Pope himselfe Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and
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
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
of all men who might by the law of nature constitute an Emperor ouer them not from the Bishop of Rome who hath no authority to giue a King or Emperor to any Prouince in the world without the consent of the same The same Cardinall being himselfe both a great Diume and Philosopher addeth many other things in that place by which he confirmes our distinction and declares that Emperors and Kings are both ouer and vnder the Popes And thus much touching the first reason of Bellarmine and the arguments brought by him to prooue the same CHAP. XVII THe second reason followes which is concluded by two fould arguments The second reason saith he the Ecclesiastike Common-weale ought to be perfect and in it selfe sufficient in order to her end For such are all Common-weales rightly founded therefore ought shee to haue all power necessary to attaine her end But the power to vse and to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to this Spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might with impunity nourish Heretikes and ouerturne religion therefore shee hath this power also Againe euery Common-wealth because it ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe may command another Common-wealth which is not subiect to it and constraine it to change the Gouernment yea euen to depose hir Prince and to appoint another when it cannot otherwise defend it selfe from hir ininries therefore much more may the Spirituall Common-weale command the Temporall Common-weale being subiect to hir and force it to change the Gouernment and to depose the Princes and appoint others seing she cannot otherwise maintaine hir Spirituall good I answer that heere are so many faults in this place as it seemeth that the Author did either idlely and carelesly transcribe all this out of some other or if it be all his owne that he did not very well remember those things which he had said before For a little before when as he laboured by another argument to prooue that the Ciuill power is subiect to the Ecclesiastike he affirmed that these powers were parts only of one Common-wealth and that they did constitute only one Common-wealth The first reason saith he is thus The Ciuill power is subiect to the Spirituall power because each of them is a part of the same Christian Common-wealth And againe secondly Kings Bishops and Clerikes and Laikes do not make two Common-wealthes but one But in this place he quite changes these two Powers into two Common-wealthes which therefore ought to be so seuered and disioyned as that Kings and Laikes doe make a Politike and Temporall Common-wealth Bishops and Clerikes a Spirituall or Ecclesiastike then which nothing could be spoken more absurdly or vnfitly for the present purpose For either he speaketh in this place of an Ecclesiastike power which is wholy seuered from the Ciuill power as it was once in the time of the Apostles and now is in those places where Christians laie amongst Heathen and Infidesl in which case it is euident that the Power or Common-wealth Ecclesiastike as he calles it or the Prince and Hierarch thereof hath no authority at all not so much as Spirituall ouer the Ciuill Prince because he is not a child of the Church Or he speakes of the power Ecclesiastike ioyned with the Ciuill as in a Christian Common-wealth and then hee doth wrong to make hir two Common-wealthes one Ecclesiastike and the other Politike when as they be onely two powers of one Christian Common-wealth and parts and members of one Church and Misticall body of Christ as himselfe deliuered before Further it is fals which he assumes That the power to vse to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to a spiritual end c. For the Prince of the Apostles himselfe openly teacheth that he had no such manner of authority ouer the temporalities of Christians except those which themselues of their owne accord did confer and offer to the Church when he saith Ananias why hath Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the holy Spirit and defraud of the price of the field Whilest it remained did it not belong to thee and being sould was it not in thy power If the Apostles had had power to dispose of the temporalties of Christians Peter surely had not said Did it not c. and when as Ananias might presently haue replied yes you had power to dispose of my goods and therefore fearing least you would take from mee more then was cause I concealed part of the price But because the Church had not this power therefore without cause did he lye to the holy Ghost And how if out of this foundation of Bellarmine it should follow that the primitiue Church had not all necessarie power to attaine vnto her end for for the space of 300 yeeres and more wherein she liued vnder heathen Princes after the passion of Christ she neuer had this power to dispose of Christians temporalties in which time notwithstanding it is most certaine that an infinite multitude of men and almost the greatest part of the world had giuen their names to Christ and that a more seuere and strict discipline raigned in the Church then at any time beside that it is impious to say that the Church was not then furnished with all necessarie meanes of Right and of Fact to attaine her end for the workes of God are perfect And surely he should doe Christ no small iniurie who thinkes that the Church is by him left and deliuered to the Apostles destitute of necessarie meanes for her preseruation Whatsoeuer was necessarie for the Church to attaine her end was abundantly and plentifully bestowed by Christ on his Apostles when he said Ego dabo vobis os sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere contradicere omnes aduersarij vestri Therfore whosoeuer conceiues that Christ recommended his Church to Peter and willed him thrice to feede his Lambes and Sheepe and supposeth that for the feeding of those sheepe and to the accomplishing of the end of his commandement he did not grant them all things necessarie both in Right and in Fact hee seemes to me no better then an Atheist and to doubt of the prouidence power and goodnesse of God Let vs imagine that he did not giue all power necessarie for the execution of so great a charge can any other reason why he did not be assigned then for because either the Lord knew not what was needfull or had no abilitie in him to giue it or which is a point of extreame malice he meant to deceiue his seruants and friends by enioyning that dutie vnto them which hee knew very well that they were neuer able to performe By these things it is cleare that the temporall authoritie and power to depose Princes is no way necessarie for the Church to attain her end although in humane consideration it may seeme sometimes to be profitable For God who hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and
say or by â—gâ—â—e and by interpretation to 〈…〉 of such a position And indeed that I 〈◊〉 speake freely they doe with two much liberty of interpretation abuse S. Paulâ— doctrine who out of that first 〈…〉 to the Corinthians doe collect that it was 〈…〉 Christians to depose Ethinke or Heretike Prin 〈…〉 other in their places Indeed the Apo 〈…〉 in that place rebuke the Christians to that they 〈◊〉 one another with sutes had no iudgment among them at all And also for that they drew one another to the Benâ—â—es oâ— Ethnike and infidell Iudges to whom euery Christian name was hatefull And yet he did this not that he â—ould teach them or signifie to them by this 〈◊〉 that Ethnike Magistrates had no iurisdiction oâ—â—â— Christianâ— or that the Christians might by any de 〈◊〉 bring to passe that Ethnikes should carry no politike doâ—◠〈…〉 them But that he might shew that it was a 〈…〉 the religion and profession of a Christian that they who were newly regenerate in Christ and were called into his fellowship had â—ather to maintaine Law 〈◊〉 and questions before Infidell Iudges then to pacific and compose their businesse and controuersies begun amongst them by the iudgement and arbitration of the Brethren which is of the Christians Therefore the Apostle doth not by this speech disanull the authoritie of the Heathen neither signifieth that the Christians may make defection from them but onely misliketh and reprooueth the peeuishnesse and stiffenesse of certaine Christians that whereas they had brethren that is men of the same religion with them who being by common coâ—â—ent appointed Aâ—bitratouâ—s might with a louing and friendly affection iustly and wisely disâ—eptate and order their causes within their domestike and priuate walles not being contented â—ith these would contentiously appeale to the great sâ—andall of religion to such Iudges as were both without saith and iustice Whencâ— S. Thâ—â—as vpon that place saith But it seemeth to bee otherwise which â—s said 1. Pâ—t 1. â—e yeâ— sâ—biect to euery humane Creature for God either to the Kiâ—g as the souâ—raigne or Lâ—â—utenantâ—â—â—â—t as it were from him for it appertaines to the aâ—tâ—oritie of tâ—â— Prince to iuâ—ge of his subiects Therefore it iâ— against the 〈◊〉 of God to fâ—râ—id that his iuâ—gâ—ment should be 〈…〉 Iâ—fideâ—l But we must say that the Apoâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 but that the 〈…〉 being â—laced vnder â—â—fidell Prâ—â—ces may make their appâ—â—rance before them if theâ— be unâ—mâ—ned â—â—r this were agaiâ—st the suâ—iâ—ction which iâ— due to Priâ—câ—s but â—e forâ—â—â—â— thâ—m that they should not be 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ard to runne to the iudgement â—eates of Infidels Vpon the selfe same place Theâ—deret Hierâ—me do almost write the selfe same things The Apostle saith he doth not heere forbid the â—aitâ—â—ull liuing vnder vnâ—aithfull Princes to appeare before thâ—m when they are summâ—ned for this were against the â—ubiection which is due to Princes but forbids their â—astie and voluntarie running to infidell Iudges in those busineâ—◠〈◊〉 which may be determined by the faithfull Therefore the Apostle in that place commands nothing which may either take away or diâ—inish the iurisdiction and authoritie of infidell Iudges ouer Christians or any way giue preiudice to the same â—ea he could not iustly command any thing against that subiection since it is of the law of Nature being confirmed by God his authoritie as by S. Ambroâ—e his witnesse the Apostle himselfe teacheth other where Therefore this constitution of Iudges whereof we speake did by no meanes exempt Christians from the subiection and iurisdiction of Ethnike Magistrates but onely tooke from them the necessitie of appealing to them when as they should haue Iudges constituted by common consent among themselues by whose arbitrations the questions that rise among them might be composed Now indeed these Iudges were no better then Vmpires without authoritie without power to draw any person before them exercising onely a voluntarie iurisdiction and therefore if either a crosse and ouertiâ—â— aâ—t Christian or any I thinke had called a Christian before an 〈◊〉 fidell Iudge this authoritie of these Christian Iudges had nothing auailed him that was thus called but that he must needs present himselfe before the heathen beâ—â—h nay he were in conscience bound to present himselfe by reason of the subiection which we owe our superiours by the law of Nature Moreouer if a man doe looke more wishly on that place of the Apostle he that of serue that in that place the Apostle takes paines to instruct their Christian mindes to Fuangelicall perfection which is a matter rather of counsell then of precept seeing he exhorts them that they would rather take wrong and suffer losse then so to â—â—nuase suâ—es among themselues According to that of our Sauiour If any man shall strike the one the right cheeke hold him thy other and he that will goe to law with thee and take away thy coate let him haue thy clâ—ake also And so the Fathers of the Church Ambrose Primastus Theodoret and all the rest vnderstood that place for that he saith Now surely there is altogether a fault amongst you that you haue iudgements amongst you why do you not rather suffer losse That vnlesse it be vnderstood of the preseruation of life or of the most perfect state of life cannot possibly be admitted seeing it is a plaine â—ase amongst all men that they doe not offend who being oppressed with iniuries and contumelies desire to be releeued and succoured by the Iudge Therefore S. Paul in that place doth like a good father of many children who worthily rebukes his children that fall out among themselues both for that by dissentions and iarrings they violate brotherly loue as also for that they had not beene more willing to end and determine the controuersie which did arise among them rather by the aduise of the brethren then wrap them in the noise and tumults of Iudiciall courtes and decide them by the verdict of strangers Seeing these thing are thus good God what a miserable blindnesse and ignorance is this or indeed a wilful craft and cunning to seeke to gather out of those words of Paul that it had beene lawfull for the Christians to depose all I thinke Emperours or Magistrates if they had had strength and power to effect the same Seeing especially that the Apostle doth other where command all Christians of necessity to be subiect to those Ethnike powers non solum propterâ—â—am least if they should practise defection they should suffer punishment from these Magistrates whose displeasure the had incurred sed etiam propter conscientiam for because they could not with a sound and safe conscience withdraw themselues from their obedience and subiection which is the ordinance of God or resist and withstand the same For this is of necessity to be subiect for conscience sake or propter Deum for God as S. Peter commandeth Moreouer the first Christians after the Apostles did ingenuously confesse that the
first of all the Popes that euer aduentured this high course wee haue sufficiently declared before But who is ignorant how that same furious aggression and censure of Boniface the VIII vpon Philip the Faire how little it profited nay how much it hurt the Church Likewise that of Iulius the II. against Lewes the XII both Kings of France of Clement the VII and Paulus the III. against Henrie the VIII and of Pius Quintus against Elizabeth Kings of England Did not all these Princes not onely not acknowledge but also contemne and laugh to scorne that same papall imperiousnesse carried beyond the bounds of a spirituall iurisdiction as meere arrogation and an vsurped domination For the two last Popes I dare bee bold to affirme vpon a cleere ground for the matter is knowne to all the world that they were the cause that Religion was lost in England for that they tooke vpon them to vsurpe and practise so odious and so large a iurisdiction ouer the Prince and people of that kingdome Therefore how much more iustly and wisely did Clement the VIII who chose rather by a spirituall and fatherly charitie and a vertue agreeable to his name to erect and establish the state of the French Kingdome which began to stagger and sway in religion then to contend by this same haughty and threatning authority of a temporall iurisdiction because hee knew that seldome or neuer it had happie issue Out of doubt for Kings and Princes who glory not without cause that they are beholding onely to God the Sword for their Kingdomes and principalities it is proper to them of a naturall greatnes of mind to desire rather to die with honour then to submit their scepters to an others authority and to acknowledge any iudge superiour in temporall matters And for that cause it seemeth not to be good for the Church and Christian common-wealth that the Pope should be inuested in so great an authority ouer secular Princes by reason of the manifold slaughters miseries and lamentable changes of Religion and of all things besides which dospring from thence In which consideration I cannot but wonder at the weake iudgement of some men who take themselues to be very wise who to remoue from the Pope the enuie of so hatefull a power and to mitigate allay the indignation of Kinges whome it offen deth so much are not afraide to giue out and to publish in bookes scattered abroad that this temporall prerogatiue of the Pope ouer Kings is passing profitable euen for the Kings thēselus because as they say mē somtimes are kept in compasse more through the feare of loosing temporall then of spirituall estates An excellent reason surely and worthy of them who put no difference betweene Princes and priuate persons and measure all with one foot Surely these men reach so farre in vnderstanding that they vnderstand nothing at all As though that feare wich falles vpon priuate persons is wont to possesse also the minds of Princes who hold themselues sufficiently protected and armed with the onely authority of their gouernment against all power and strength and impression of any man That reason ought onely to be referred to them whom the terrour of temporall authority and the seuerity of ordinary iurisdiction do reclaime from offending with feare of punishment for these kind of people because they are sure that if they offend they shall be chastised with some pecuniarie or corporall mult doe for the most part abstaine from doing hurt not for conscience but for the displeasure and feare of the losse of temporall thinges But Kings haue not the same reason but being placed on high aboue all humane constitutions and all positiue lawes doe giue vnto God onely the account of their administration whose punishment the longer it is in cōming the more seuere it is like to bee Against priuate persons the execution of punishment is ready which they cannot auoid without the mercy of the Prince But what execution can bee done against Princes seeing they are not tied by any sanctions of humane lawes nullisque ad poenam vocentur legibus tuti imperij poteslate For that it is expressed in the law That the Prince is free from the laws that both the Latine and the Greeke Interpreters do vnderstand as of all lawes so especially of poenall that the Prince although he doe offend may not be chastised by them or as the Graecians doe speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is the cause that Kings being assured both the greatnesse of their authority and confidence of their Armes feare not the losse of any temporall estate seeing there is not one among a thousād of them so froward and friendlesse but that he can find many friends to follow his party by whose helpe and aduice whether he be to vse sleight or strength hee supposeth he can maintaine his Crowne and scepter And for this very reason it is so farre that they will be terrified with these imperious and lording minitations to take their Kingdomes away that they are rather inflamed and set on fire by them against all pietie and religion And it is verie certaine that this temporall power which the Pope some ages past doth challenge ouer all men is so hatefull to princes that euen they who doe much honour the seate of Peter and do acknowledge the great power of his successors in spirituall causes yet they cannot without indignation endure to heare the speech of this temporall domination The reason is because neither in the sacred scriptures nor traditions of Apostles or any writings of ancient fathers there appeareth any testimony nay no token or print of footing of any such authority of the Pope and that a matter of so great weight I meane so great a commaund and power of raigning should bee euicted or wrested from them without the manifest word of God or pregnant proofe of reason neither can they endure any reason of law or indifferencie of equity can admit Wherfore wise men haue euer been of this mind that the Popes should with much more case procure the peace of the Church if according to the custome of their ancesters they would quietly rest themselues within the bounds and compasse of the spirituall iurisdiction and that according to their Apostolicke charity they should humblie entreat wicked Kings requesting beseeching protesting with praiers and teares that they would returne into the way rather then that they should goe about through this hatefull intermination to strip them of their temporall authority as it were through force and feare wherby they profit nothing or little to extort and wrest from them amendement of maners and faith And if these Princes bee so obstinate and stiffe in their wicked courses that they can be moued with no teares nor bended with no praiers the assistance of God must be implored and they abandoned to his iudgement But now let vs goe forward CHAP. XXXII THe second argument which Bellarmine deducteth out of his fift
manner of men which might be a scandall to the Laitie as are the faults which are committed of humaine frailety that the same might with more secresie and closenes be amended before their proper Ordinaries nor should not come to the eares of the rude and barbarous multitude which oft times measureth the doctrine by the manners and is accustomed either to disdaine or to scorne and laugh at these maner of slippes in the Clergy And moreouer lest the Cleriques who ought to bee carefull and diligent to maintaine peace and concord and both in word and deede to giue example of charity and patience should seeme by their often haunting and frequenting of secular Courts to shew the way to all manner of strifes and contention Then by these decrees of Councelles there is nothing detracted from the authoritie of the Laickes but that they may heare the causes of the Clergie men For the Fathers did not neither indeed could they forbid that secular Iudges should not iudge and determine of Clergie mens causes being brought before them for that had beene to take from Princes and Magistrates that right and authoritie which the law of Christ doth not permit them to doe but indeed they did forbidde that one Clergy person should not draw an other before those kind of Iudges appointing canonicall or ecclesiasticall punishments against them which did not obey Now this they might appoint iustly and lawfully without wrong or preiudice to any euen as a good Father that hath many children may commaund his children and also forbid them vnder a priuate and domesticke punishment that they doe not contēd before a Iudge about any controuersies amongst themselues but that they cease and lay downe all quarrell and differences vpon the iudgment of their father or brethren and by giuing his children this charge he doth not preiudice at all the authority of lawfull Iudges Euen so the Fathers of the councels haue inhibited their sonnes that is the Clergy men that they should maintaine no action nor question amongst them selues before secular Iudges not by taking away from the Laiques their power to heare and decide of their causes but by abridging the Clergie of their ancient liberty of going so freely vnto them as they vsed to do And this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authority and iurisdiction of temporall Magistrates but only to take a course by which the Clergie hauing businesse with the Clergy may easily attaine their right without so much noise and stirrings in Lay-mens courtes And lest any man should doubt whether these things stand thus or no I thought it worth my pains to set down the very decrees of the Counsels from which because they were not well vnderstoode this errour hath sprung that from thence the Reader may vnderstand the truth of our discourse The first then which decreed any thing touching this point was the 3. councell of Carthage held the yeare of our Lord 397. at which S. Augustine was present and subscribed the same In the 9. can of that councell it is thus written Also wee haue ordained that whosoeuer Bishop Priest and Deacon or Clerke when as a crime is charged vpon him in the Church or a Ciuill controuersie shall bee raised against him if he leauing the Ecclesiastick iudgement shall desire to be cleared by the publique iudgements although the sentence passe of his side that hee shall lose his place and this in a criminall iudgement But in a Ciuill that he foresee that which hee hath wonne if he desire to hold his place still For hee that hath free liberty to chuse his Iudges where hee will hee doth shew himselfe to be vnworthy of the fellowshippe of his brethren who conceiuing meanely of the whole Church sueth to the secular iudgement for helpe Whereas the Apostle commaundeth that the causes of priuate Christians should bee brought to the Church and be there determined Is there any word here whereby it may be gathered by any probable reason that the Councell meant to exempt the Clergie from the iurisdiction of secular Magistrates or doth declare that the Laickes are not competent Iudges for the Clergie Nay it sheweth the direct contrarie viz. that they doe confesse that the secular Iudges may by good right heare and decide the causes of Clergie persons and that they doe not disallow their iudgements as giuen by an incompetent Iudge but that they only endeuour this to restraine the giddinesse and forwardnesse of those Clerickes that when as a cause hath alreadie beene begun to bee debated in the Church forsaking and contemning the Ecclesiasticke Iudges doe submit themselues to the order and iudgement of Laickes in which case the Councell doth not disallow the sentence giuen by a secular Iudge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Iudge but a penaltie depriueth that Clerke of the fruit and benefite of such a sentence by reason of his lewdnesse and disorder Now in that the Fathers of that Councell did at that time acknowledge the Ciuill Magistrates to bee the competent Iudges of Clergy men by that it may bee vnderstood sufficiently that they restrained this their decree to that case wherein a crime is raised vpon a Clearke in the church or a ciuill controuersie set on foot against him Therfore out of these cases it was by this Canon lawfull for the Clergie without offence to prosecute their sutes in a ciuill court and to debate their businesse before a secular Iudge After followed the famous Councell of Chalcedon Ann. Dom 451. which also in the 9. Canon decreeth on this manner If any Clergy person haue businesse with a Clergie person let him not forsake his proper Bishop and runne to temporall iudgements but first let the businesse be sifted by the pr per Bishop or at least by the counsell of the same Bishop they shall receiue iudgement and order from them by whom both parties were content to be iudged If any shall doe otherwise he shall be subiect to the Canonicall consures Obserue how this Councell directeth her speech to the Clergie that they should not leaue their owne Bishops to goe to secular Iudges but not to temporall Magistrates and Iudges that they should not heare Clergie men comming to them and after the cause debated should pronounce sentence according to the course of law compell them to performe the iudgement Therefore by this Canon there is nothing taken from the authoritie of the Laitie For those words of the Canon or Decree Sedprius actio ventiletur apud proprium Fpiscopum doe sufficiently shew that the Fathers of the Councell doe only require that all the causes of Clergie men bee at the first hand examined by the Bishop secondly if there bee cause that they bee carried to the examination of the temporall Iudge For it is not likely or credibl that that word Primum was idly and super fluously set downe by so many worthy and wise men and so that Canon doth wholly accord with the Nouell Constitution of
Iustinian 82. made in fauour of the Clergie men That Clergie men should first bee conuented before their owne Bishops and afterwards before Ciuill Iudges Therefore the Ciuill Iurisdiction of secular Iudges ouer the Clergie is not weakened by this Canon but rather confirmed Likewise in the Councell of Agatha vnder King Alaricke Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same decreed Can. 32 That no Clergie man should presume to molest any man before a secular Iudge if the Bishop did not giue him licence The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decreâ—um not without very foule dealing both changing the reading and wresting the sense for whereas the Councell had said Clericus ne quenquam praesumat c. that he hath drawne to his owne opinion depraued in this manner Clericum nullus praesumat apud sâ—cularem Iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare that is Let no man presume to molest a Clergie man before a Secular Iudge c. That the prohibition may include the Laâ—cks also that they should not conuent a Clergy man before a Secular Iudge whereas it is made only for Clergie men without any mention at all of the Laitie Besides the second part of that Canon doth manifestly shew that the Councell is thus farre offended with the Laickes which draw the Clergie before Secular Iudgements and propoundeth Ecclesiasticall punishments against them if so bee they shall doe it wrongfully of a purpose to vex and molest them For it followeth in the same Canon But if any Secular man shall attempt wrongfully to torment and vex the Church and Clergie men by moouing of sutes before Secular Iudges and shall be conuicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church and from the Communion of the Catholikes vnlesse hee shall worthily repent but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Councell but also of the Epistle of Pope Marcellinus in eadem Cauâ— quaest Can 3. and for Clericus nullum hath written Clericus nullus that it is no maruell that the Canonists who did only reade the gatherings of Gratianus being deceiued by this false reading haue fallen into this errour which we now repichend But it is a maruell that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus and not rather the true and naturall section of the Authors themselues in his Controucisies Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 28. But in the first Councell of Matiscum which was held vnder King Guâ—tramnus An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner That no Clericke presume in what place soeuer to accuse any other brother of the Clergie or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular Iudge but let all matters of the Clergie be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop or Priest or Arch deacon And in the third Councell of Toletum which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the raigne of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus The continuall misgouernment and accustomed presumption of libertie hath so farre opened the way to vnlawfull attempts that Clerickes leauing their Bishops doe draw their fellow Clerkes to publike iudgements Therefore wee ordaine that the like presumption be attempted no more If any shall presume to doe it let him lose his cause and be banished from the Communion These are the solemne and almost the sole decrees of the Canons whereon they ground their errour who falsely supposed that Councels could or in fact did exempt the Clergie from the power of the Laitie whom the Canons themselues notwithstanding doe so euidentlie conuince that wee neede not bring any thing else besides them for to represse that conceit of theirs And these matters haue beene thus discoursed by mee not with that minde and intent to rippe vp the priuileges of the Clergie or because I either enuie that they enioy them or wish that they were taken from them They who know mee know very well in what account I haue euer had and haue Ecclesiasticall persons I doe honour the Priests of God as my parents and esteeme them worthy all honour but as an humble childe I aduise them that they be not vnthankfull nor disdaine their benefactors from whom they haue receiued so many priuileges They are bound to reuerence and honour their temporall Princes as their Patrons and Protectors and procurers of their libertie and not as many of them at this day vse to denie that they are beholding to Princes for those fauours but to ascribe all their liberties and exemptions and immunities to Pontificiall and Canonicall Constitutions which is the most vnthankfull part which can proceede from vnthankfull mindes For what temporall libertie soeuer they haue they haue receiued the same not from the Popes but from secular Princes nor from the Canons but from the Lawes CHAP. XXXIII I Will say more and I will speake the truth although peraduenture it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seeme hatefull which are neuer so little against their humour and disposition Therefore I will speake and I will speake a great word which peraduenture either no man hitherto hath remembred or if any haue hee hath not at the least put any in minde as hee ought whom it concerned to know the same And that is that the Clergie thorow the whole world of what order or degree soeuer they be are not to this day in any manner exempt and freede from the temporall authoritie of secular Princes in whose Kingdomes and countries they liue but are subiect to them in no other manner then other Citizens in all things which belong to ciuill and temporall administration and iurisdiction and that the same Princes haue power of life and death ouer them as well as ouer their other subiects and therefore that the Prince I speake of him who acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall affaires may either of his clemencie forgiue or punish according to the Law a Clergie man committing any fault whatsoeuer so the fault bee not meerely Ecclesiasticall This although it seeme hard and halfe a paradoxe to them who being possessed with the errour of the contrarie opinion doe thinke that they liue within the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Pope only and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of humane lawes besides notwithstanding I shall bring to passe in few words that they may plainly vnderstand that there is nothing more true then this proposition of mine so as they be onely willing to open their eares to â—eare the true reason thereof with indifferencie The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we haue set downe and prooued before out of the iudgement of the Diuines of the best note and shall presently bee demonstrated by necessary and euident conclusion drawne from thence First of all therefore this is set downe and granted and also confirmed with most firme reasons and testmonies that all both Clerickes and Laickes were in the power and authoritie of Kings and Emperours so
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours as concerning temporall matters Ergo hee had no temporall authority ouer them that hee might iudge them in temporalties The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour a superiour I meane in that very point whereof the iudgement is made For as we haue often said Par in parem non habet imperium And in nature it cannot be that one and the same person should be both inferiour superiour in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same matter no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries when as they affirme and clearely confirme by reasons That the exception vnlesse you wil say exemption of Cleriques in ciuill causes aswell concerning their persons as Gods was brought or by the law of man For as Augustine witnesseth humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes as we shewed in the last Chapter before And that euen of their meere and free bounty for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church to grant the Clergy those priuiledges seeing it is not found to be expressed prouided by no law of God And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right interest as thēselus confesse we haue often signified And therfore as their owne learning carieth Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties By all this discourse it followeth that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges of exemptions and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope and other Clergie persons Therefore that which might be done let vs suppose it was done that is that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie or priuiledge doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince as his fellow Bishops and Brethren in France Spaine and Britanie and in other kingdomes doe Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties to whome hee is temporally subiect Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours then he had before through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties But if any bee so fond perhaps to say that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church viz. to iudge and depose euill princes but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered that he could not exercise it so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties But now after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes made himselfe a temporall princes there is nothing to hinder but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation I must answere him nothing else but that the things he speaketh are not onely false but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnpossible setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse and which is most true that is to say that the Popes before such time as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction were subiect to them both de iure and de facto For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power for that it is not competent but by right of superiority Now it implieth a contradiction that the Pope was by right superiour and by right inferiour at the same time in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature and the most holy rule of life they must needes bee in a great error who affirme that this soueraigne authority wherof we speake was by Christ conferred on Peter and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons and full weake patched vp together of similitudes comparisons allegories and such like stuffe as you may see by that which wee haue refuted All which are to be reiected and little esteemed when as by the position and granting of them some absurditie doth follow as in this point or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines The third argument saith he is this A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe as is conuenient for them Ergo the Pope may and ought command Christians those things and inforce them to these things to which euery one of them in his condition is bound that is constraine euery one to serue God in that manner wherein they ought according to their state and condition But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it and vnlesse they doe it to enforce them by excommunication and other conuenient meanes Surely I see not what is contained in this argument which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode Now the Popes reuenewes although they be great would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion for hee saith to enforce by Excommunication and other conuenient meanes meaning Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke not a temporall Shepheard but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule
these cannot be ioined together vnlesse this medium bee set downe and granted That the Pope may doe as much by the authority of his ordinary iurisdiction without the expresse commaundement of God as the Prophets could when the Lord commaunded specially and expresly which cannot bee said without great iniury to God But as touching the sword of Elizeus whereof hee speaketh First hee doth with much learning and piety discourse of the same That it may bee vnderstood of the same That it may be vnderstood of the spiritual sword which is in the Church in the haÌ„d of the Pope whome no man whatsoeuer hee be either King or Emperour can auoide and which is placed by the Lord in the last place both for that it is ineuitable and therfore the more to bee feared then the other as also for that the bodies onely are killed by them but the soules by this But afterwards when hee proceedes after his manner and by interpretation transferreth that place of scripture and an other of the reuenge of Elias vpon the two companies of 50. their souldiers to the temporall authority of the Pope he slideth into that shamefull errour which wee noted afore which is that Prophets without speciall commission or diuine reuelation might by their owne authority and pleasure chastise euen with capitall punishments all those whome God had decreed by a secret dispensation to take reuenge vpon either by miracle or otherwise either to manifest the glory of his maiesty or to vindicate the iniuries of his seruants and that which God had commaunded to be done onely by one meane that they may execute by other waies and meanes as please them that hereby he may proue as by a necessary consequeÌ„ce that the Pope whose authority is no lesse yea greater in the new law then was the authority of the Prophets and Priests in the old may doe full as much by his Apostolicke authority But who doth not know that God hath granted many things to the praiers of his seruants and for their takes hath wrought many thinges wonderfully euen without their prayers which it was not lawfull for them by any way or meane to attempt much lesse to execute if hee did not commaund it first The reason whereof is plaine and euident in the persons of the Prophets For it is cleare amongst all men that none of the Pro phets had any authority and gouernment ouer the Hebrewes besides a very few who were both Prophets and Princes of the people and Iudges together as Moses Iosue Samuel Dauid But the rest although they were inspired from God yet they liued priuately without any temporall gouernment declaring and executing those things onely whereof they were aduertised by the spirite of God and all their prescience and fore knowledge was so tempered and moderated from heauen that they might know and foretell neither all things for at all times but so farre as was imparted vnto them by the spirite of God whereof the Prophet Iadon is a witnesse who being deceiued by the false Prophet affirming that the Angell of the Lord had spoken with him did not vnderstand that hee lied and thereby was craâ—tâ—ly abused and brought to destruction Eliseus also is witnesse who when the poore Sunamite lay at his feet said to Giezi that desired to remoue her Lether alone for her soule is in bitternesse and the Lord bath bidit from me and hath not told me Therefore whereas Sanders asketh whether Elias could not say to some principall man or magistrate if hee had beene present runne vpon these Souldiers and kill them and if so bee that Prince bad offended if vpon Elias his word he had slaine the Kings subiects that cannot be resolued but by the tenor of Gods pleasure known in euery businesse And therefore as concerning Elias in this case if God did giue him commission to punish such offenders either specially by the sword or generally by any meane whatsoeuer no man doubts but that hee might without sinne commit to any man the authority and execution of the sword and any man without offence might vndertake to execute that commaundement But if as it is likely the Lord had only reuealed so much to him that he would destroy with fire from heauen those wicked desiders and scoffers he was onely to expect that and to practise nothing else against them after the guise and fashion of men or giue order at his pleasure to execute any ciuill punishments vpon them which he might not doe without impietie because he had receiued neither from God nor man any ordinarie nor warranted delegated iurisdiction to do it And for that cause he had sinned grieuously if he had willed or perswaded any Prince or Magistrate any such thing and these also had sinned if vndertaking his commaundement they had slaine the Kings subiects Nothing can be propounded more certainely and plainly then this distinction that it is a wonder that so absurd an opinion should fall from Sanders as to thinke that Elias might simply and without the expresse commaundement of God execute death vpon the Kinges souldiers in what manner hee listed Now the reasons he vseth for the strengthning of this opinion of his are friuolous and vtterly vnworthy to bee brought by a man of a sharpe iudgement especially a Diuine for the dicision of such a question That seruice which the sire from heauen did saith he could not the earthly sword haue performed the same Yes surely could it and not onely a sword but also any other weapon if it had beene vsed by Gods commaundement neither did any euer doubt of that But because the Lord prepared that reuenge by fire onely against the fifty and acquainted the Prophet in the spirit with his purpose Elias neither ought nor could take his reuenge by any other instrument or meane vnlesse the same had likewise beene declared to him by the same spirit because in matters not reuealed he was neither ordinary or extraordinary Iudge Moreouer if that which the lawes of men doe ordaine and enact When any man is condemned to be punished with the sword hee ought to bee punished with the sword not with an axe or bill or club or halter or by any other way Who is so auerse from truth and from all reason to belieue that one certaine and particular manner of execunon being prescribed by the Lord may be changed by man into an other forme and kind of punishment For as in all businesses the ends of the commaundement are to be kept diligently so chiefly in the diuine commaundements God hath charged that his commaundements be kept euerely Hereby it appeares that it is very sleight and slender which he laieth downe for a strength of his conceit That with wise men it maketh no matter what is made of those things which are of the same momient and weight And herein his errour is double oâ—e because he draweth that Maxime of his to vniuersallie and
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