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
heart those wordes doe testifie which he writeth more expresly about the end of that Epistle of his necessarie subiection and obedience toward the Emperour Mauricius had made a law which though it were vniust and preiudiciall to the libertie of the Church yet Gregorie receiuing a Commandement from the Emperour to publish it did send it accordingly into diuers countries to be proclaimed Therfore thus he concludes that Epistle I being subiect to the Commandement haue caused the same law to bee sent abroad into diuers parts of the world and because the same law is no whit pleasing to Almightie God behold I haue signified so much to my honorable Lordes by this letter of my suggestion Therefore in both respects I haue discharged my dutie in that I haue both performed my Obedience to the Emperour and haue not concealed that which I thought on Gods behalfe O diuine Prelate and speech to be continually remembred to all succeeding Bishops of all ages But ô God! whether is that gentle and humble confession banished out of our world to which this threatning and insolent speech against Kings and Emperors hath by little and little succeeded We being placed in the supreme throne of iustice possessing the supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the vniuersall earth ouer all Peoples Countries Nations which is committed to vs not by humane but by diuine ordinance doe declare will command c. which word it is plaine euen by this that they are false and vaine because the Pope hath neither spirituall nor temporall power ouer vnbeleeuing Princes and People as Bellarmine with very good reason sheweth in his bookes of the Bishop of Rome These and such like fashions as these who will they not driue into amazement and wonder at so great a change of the Popes state and gouernment or doe they not giue to all men iust cause to enquire wherefore the former Popes in the most flowrishing age of the Church acknowledged themselues to be the seruants subiects and vassals of Princes and obeied their authority in temporall matters when as they notwithstanding were ouer them in spirituall and our later Popes professe themselues to be Lords of all Kings Princes Countries and Nations In very truth this matter doth giue no small occasion to many learned men and good Catholikes to doubt of the iustnesse of this change yea indeed to beleeue that a temporall gouernement so great and so absolute had his beginning in the persons of Popes not from God omnipotent but from the impotent ambition of certaine men and that it was not in the beginning conferred from heauen vpon Peter by the Lord Christ but was vsurped by certaine successors of Peter many ages after according to the fashion of the world that is certaine Popes hauing a massed huge store of wealth and riches and fostering their blind ambition and sury by little and little challenged that greatnesse to themselues whereby they laboured and stroue that it might be lawfull for them to take away and bestow what soeuer Kingdomes and Principalities are in the world Sure they were men and as other men are sometimes too greedy of vanity as was he who only for the malice he bare against Philip the Faire King of France set forth a decretall constitution which brought foorth so many scandalls so many dangers that it deserued foorthwith to be abrogated by Boniface his successor Now the admirable and miserable assentation of certaine flatterers gaue increase and nourishment to that vice in them who by their fond and foolish assertions such as now these Bozian fancies are affirmed that all things were lawfull for the Pope and that by Gods law all things were subiect to him Whereby we may maruaile the lesse if many of them did so far forget their Bishoplike and Apostolike modesty that through a desire to enlarge their power they encroched vpon other mens borders Of whom Gaguinus a learned man and religious taxing by the way an authority so far spread and vsurped as he calls it Therefore so great saith he is their height and state that making small reckoning of Kings they glory that they may doe all things Neither hath any in my time come to the Popedome who hauing once got the place hath not forthwith aduanced his nephewes to great wealth and honor And long before Gaguinus S. Bernard Doth not in these dates ambition more then deuotion weare the thresholds of the Apostles vpon this occasion Platina In this manner dieth that Boniface who endeuoured to strike terror rather then religion into Emperors Kings Princes Nations Peoples who also laboured to giue Kingdomes and to take them away to famish men and to reduce them at his owne pleasure And the same Gaguinus in another place Such an end of his life had Boniface the disdainer of all men who little remembring the precepts of Christ indeuoured to take away and to bestow Kingdomes at his pleasure when as he knew well enough that he stood in his place here in earth whose kingdome was not of this world nor of earthly matters but of heauenly who also had procured the Popedome by subtelty and wicked practise and kept Caelestinus in prison while he liued a most holy man of whom he receiued honor CHAP. IV. NOw I do chiefly find two things which seem to haue giuen vnto the Popes the opportunity to arrogate so great power to themselues The one is the very great honor which as indeed there was reason was giuen to the chiefe Pastor of soules by Princes and christian people and yet ought to be giuen to him and the forestalled and setled opinion of the sanctity of that sea of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul which is conspicuous and excelleth amongst all men in all spirituall honor and authority and in that respect hath been beyond all other most increased and honored with wealth and riches By these meanes all men were very easily perswaded to beleeue that neither the Pope in regard of his holinesse would challenge to himselfe any authority which did not appertaine vnto him and also that it was not lawfull for a christian man in any manner to disobey the Popes commandements Whereby it came to passe that sundry Popes whose mindes were too much addicted to ambition and vaine glory embouldned and hartned through the confidence of this so great reuerence and affection of men towards them drew to themselues this power ouer Kings which was vtterly vnknowen to the first successors of Peter The which also passed the more currant by reason of the preoccupate and now engrafted conceipt of the people and ignorant folke who being possessed of this opinion of holinesse did verily beleeue that the Pope could not erre either in word or deed and also by the writings of certaine cleargy men catholikes and Canonists who either erring through ignorance of the truth or wholly resolued into flattery of their Prince the Pope of whom they did
a kingdome forfeited they haue him onely their Iudge and not the Church or the Pope Whereby it doth easily appeare how captious those reasons and conclusions are which Sanders from whom Bellarmine hath receiued this stuffe of his doth deduce out of those manner of promises made either secretly or expresly For as concerning those formes of asking and answering which he with many idle words and falsely deuiseth betweene the Pope and the Princes which come to the Church we must answer that they are fondly conceiued by him and that they neither ought nor are accustomed to passe in the admittance of Heathen Princes which come to the Church least the Church should seeme either to suspect them or to diuine and conceiue ill of them for the time to come Therfore their burning loue towards Christ and present confession of their faith whereby they in general tearms promise that they wil giue there names to Christ and become children of the Church and will renounce the diuel and his works and keep the commandements of God and the Church and such like are cause sufficient enough that they should be receiued All which matters they doe indeed promise to Christ the Church receiuing the promise as his Spouse in whose boosome they are regenerate or the Bishop himselfe not as a man but as a Minister of Christ God himselfe discharging a Deputies office heerein and therefore the obligation is principally taken to Christ himselfe by the Church or the Pope Whereby although they haue also promised all other things which Sanders hath comprehended in that forged forme of his and shall afterwards neglect or wholy contemne that couenant agreed on they can be punished by him onely into whose words they did sweare and who is the Lord of all temporall estates and whom they haue for their onely Iudge ouer them intemporall matters but not by him to whom the care onely of spirituall matters and to take the promise is committed And to these spirituall matters are those things most like and most resemble them which we see daily to be obserued in the ciuill Gouernment They who aspire to the succession of Feudes or Fees whether they come in by hereditarie right or by any other title cannot enioy them vnlesse they first be admitted into his clientele and seruice who is Lord of the Fee that is vnlesse they in words conceiued doe take the oath of fealtie to the Lord which they commonly call Homagium or Hominium But if it be the Kings fee to which they succeed the King doth seldome in his owne Person take the oath of fealtie but executeth that businesse for the most part by his Chancellor or soem other Deputie especially assigned for that purpose Therefore the Chancellor when hee admits to Fees and Honors great Personages swearing into the Kings wordes he dischargeth the same office vnder the King in a Ciuill administration and iurisdiction which the Pope doth vnder Christ in the spirituall gouernment of the Church when he receiues Princes comming vnto her by taking the oath of their faithfulnesse and pietie towards God And the Chancellor the Tenant once admitted although after he breake his oath and commit the crime which they call Felonie may in no cause take away the Fee which is the proper right of the King alone and not granted to the Chancellor at all So neither can the Pope depriue of Kingdomes and authoritie or any way temporally punish Princes receiued into the Church although they offend grieuouslie afterward or forsake the faith Because that is reserued to God onely Therfore although Christian Kings and Princes be in the Church and in respect that they are the Children of the Church be inferiour to the church and the Pope notwithstanding in regard that they doe beare a soueraigne rule temporall in the world they are not inferiours but rather superiours and therefore although they haue forfeited their kingdome by secret or expresse couenant yet neither people nor Pope nor church canne take it away from them But onely Almightie God alone from whom is all power and to whom aloue they are inferiour in Ciuill administration And neither shall Bellarmine nor any other be euer able to bring or as I may say to digge out of the monuments of any age any forcible argument whereby he may make it plaine vnto vs that secular Kings and Princes when they were receiued to the Faith by the Church did in such manner renounce their interest as both to lay downe altogether the temporall authoritie which they had receiued of God and also to subiect themselues to the Church to be iudged in Ciuill affaires and to be chastised with temporall punishment And if none of them can demonstrate this they must needs confesse that Kings and Princes did after the faith receiued retaine their Kingdomes and Empires in the same Right the same Libertie and Authoritie wherein they possessed them before such time as they came to the Church because as the Aduersaries doe confesse Lex Christineminem priuat iure suo If therefore before Baptisme they had no Iudge aboue them in temporall matters but God alone neither ought they to haue any after Baptisme But we haue spoken more of this matter in the refutation of the first reason In this place I stand not much vpon Bozius his dotages Now for that he vnderlaies after this fourth reason in the words following For he is not fit to receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme who is not ready to serue Christ and for his sake to loose whatsoeuer he hath For the Lord saith Lu. 14. if any man come to me and hateth not father and mother and wife and children yea and euen his owne life he cannot be my Disciple I cannot tell to what end he vseth these words Surely no man denies it But what of it Such a reason belongs no more to the purpose then that which is furthest from the matter nor that neither which followeth in the same place Besides saith he the Church should grieuously erre if she should admit any King which would with impunitie cherish euery manner of sect and defend heretikes and ouerthrow Religion This is most true But as I said it belongs nothing to the purpose for now the question is not of that matter but of the temporall power of the Church or of the Pope who is the substitute head thereof vnder Christ I meane whether he haue that power whereby he may chastise with temporall punishments Kings and Princes duely receiued if after they shall breake the faith and forsake the dutie vndertaken by them in the lauer of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proued or disprooued by these correllaries and additions and for this cause we passe them ouer CHAP. XXV THe fift and last reason is drawen from his Pastorall charge and office in these wordes When it was said to Peter Feed my sheepe Iohn the last all the power was giuen him which was necessarie to maintaine 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
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
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
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
to iustifie the iustice of that deposition are so vncertaine and friuolous that I wonder that they were ouer propounded by him For first in that he measures the equity of this fact of Zachary by the euent of the businesse as though the action must be accounted iust because that change of the Kingdome had prosperous and happy successe especially saith he since the euent doth teach that that change was most happy it is so triuiall and childish that it was not to be conceiued much lesse alleadged in writing by such a man Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab euentu facta not anda putes For what I pray you Was not afterwards in the same Kingdome of France the change from the Carolouingiâ— to the Capeuingii made with great iniustice For Hugo Capet a man of a great mind and might in the state when none was able to represse or encounter his practises vsurped the Kingdom by force arms obtained the crown taking the true heire and casting him into prison For which fact Gaguinus calleth him an vsurper of the Kingdome And yet all the world doth know that that change was most happy and as some thinke done by the secrete iudgement of God that Pipine who had wrongfully taken the Kingdome from the Merouingij should at the last suffer the like wrong in his posterity Therefore the Carolouingians did not so long hold the Kingdome if they bee compared with the Capeuingians And the Capeuingians haue the gouernement much longer established in their house and as J hope will haue for euer The second reason also is no whit stronger which he draweth from the holinesse of Boniface the Bishoppe who at the commandement of Zacharie anointed and crowned Pipine King Adde saith he to these that hee who anointed and crowned King Pipine by the Popes commandement was a most holy man viz. B. Boniface Bishoppe and Martyr who surely would neuer haue beene the auther of iniustice and of a publicke offence This I say is a very light argument and of no waight For in that businesse Boniface was onely a Minister of the Apostolicke commaundement and therefore it was no preiudice to his holinesse which he executed at the Popes commaundement for he was bound to execute the Popes sentence although he knew it to be iniust and therefore although the iniustice of the commaundement had made Zacharie guilty yet Boniface had beene declared to bee innocent by the order of seruing and necessity of obedience Therefore Boniface might with a safe conscience fulfill the commaundement of Zacharie though it were iniust But this Zacharie was a good Pope It may bee so wee denie it not so was Dauid a good King and holy and Theodosius a good Emperour Marcellinus and Liberius were both good Popes and yet not one of these but committed some things worthy of blame Why then might not Zacharie also serue his owne malice or loue and after the manner of men in some part violate iustice It is well knowne that Zacharie in those times did stand in extream need of Pipines aid against the iniuries of Aistulphus the Longobardes and was not that a strong engine to batter iustice thinke you loue hatred and a proper gaine make that a Iudge many times doth not know the truth But to striue no longer about the equity of this act of Zacharie let it bee as they would haue it let vs grant that that Act was most iust what strength doe they winne by this to make good the temporall authority which they giue to the Pope ouer Princes is it any more then that by the patterne of that action the Pope may now doe as then Zacharie did which is that hee may giue his consent to a people for the like causes respects to put down their king that is to say if he bee a King that hath onely the Name and not the authority or power of a King who also hath no issue like to die in orbitie and of mind so slothfull and so blockish that hee may bee deposed without any bloudshed and of a Prince may bee made a priuate person no man moaning his fortune no man following his party For an argument from an example is nothing vnlesse the cases and causes be alike in each respect Therfore this example of Zacharie What maketh it to establish that infinite authority wheron the Popes relying in the following ages haue attempted and sometimes gloried that they could vndertake mighty Kings abounding in all manner of wealth excelling in strength both of mind and body not at the request of the people nor by consent onely but of their proper motion by warres by murther by Schismes by great miseries of the Christian common-wealth to depriue them of their Kingdomes and to spoile them of their crownes and scepters Will any wise man iudge that this is lawfull for them to doe by the example of Zacharias his Act But of this matter enough CHAP. XLII THe death of the Author enuied vs this last part of the Booke FINIS a 〈…〉 b 〈◊〉 111. ad 〈…〉 Deo reâ—ertur dist 9. can 10. * Thâ— Bozim d Lib. 2. cap. 1â— e Lib. 5. cap. vlt. * Matth. 8. Luk. 9. Rom. 13. a Can. duo sunt can cum ad verum 96. dist cap. nouit de iudic cap. per ve nerabilem qui filij sunt legit b Cap. 6. c Lib. 2. de liber Christ. cap. 2. * Matth. 22. Mark 12. d In câ—p inquisitions de sent excom e Dict. can cum ad verum 96. dist i 1 L. 2. C. cov de legat k L. Sâ—re leges D. de legib * Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap. 3. Lib. 5. de Rom. 〈◊〉 â—ap 3. * See the admonition to the reader m Iob. 5. ca. 7. Hierar Eccl. l. b. 1. de pon Rom. cap. 29. * At Rom. 13. q Iâ—b 5. de Rom. Pont. C. 7. g L. illud D. ad leg Aquil. h Act. 5. * 1. Cor. 5. * Cap 14. * Lib. 2. Epist. 61. indict 11. 2 Serm 29 le 〈…〉 tom 10. Ex. 〈…〉 5. 〈◊〉 Regin Aug. 〈◊〉 5. contra Reg. Franc. b Lib. 5. cap 2. c Cap. â—ler de immunit ec l. in 6. d Clem. de imunit eccl vbi glos â—d notaâ— e Lib 1 hist 〈…〉 f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium g In vita Bonif. 〈◊〉 h Lib â— hist. in vita Philip. Pul. * See the admonition to the reader Cap. per venerabilem qui fil sunt legit k Can. ficut Can. excommunicatos xi q. 3. l Cap. 21. m Lib. 3 contra Epist. Parm. c. 2. n Psal. 118. a Lib 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. b Lib. 1. de indict 13. epist. 31. e I. 5 § generaliter D. de don inter vir vxor f Panor in cap. ludum 54. de elect cap. 〈◊〉 pridem 〈◊〉 pact a cap. 18. See the admonition to the Reader a Lib 5
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
premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules and none 〈…〉 of has iudgement as hath beene said And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 thâ—â— kingdomes which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christiaâ— Kings and Princes should stand 〈…〉 that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all tempâ—â—alitiâ—s of Christians who shall meaâ—â— tâ—at 〈…〉 owne pleasure and iudgement that 〈…〉 for him if he be displeased then to 〈…〉 his indirect power so oâ—t 〈…〉 priuate 〈◊〉 oâ— the ambiâ—◠〈…〉 forward or euen 〈…〉 and contemned 〈…〉 Where of â—â—â—face 〈…〉 haue giuen 〈…〉 all of iâ—any they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the poâ—tifiâ—◠〈…〉 and 〈…〉 one after another as 〈…〉 I omit this reason taken 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—ought it 〈…〉 for that 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 kingdoms but an execution 〈…〉 to thâ—m by the Pope â—â—t iâ— it strange against the 〈…〉 and all the abâ—ttoâ— of the indirect power 〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction is 〈…〉 by the law of God oâ— of Man and also he 〈…〉 oâ— holdeth any thâ—ng iâ— he hold by neiâ—â—â—â— of these holdeth wrongfullâ— as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Dâ—â—atists Therefore it cannot be that the Pope should iustly exercise any temporall iurisdiction ouer secular Kings and Princes vnlesse it be certaine that the same is giuen him either by the law of God or of Man But neither in diuine nor humane lawes is any such place found which confers any such power vpon him whereas on the contrary part the domination and authority of kings is openly commended and allowed by many testimonies of sacred Scriptures as when it is said By mee Kings raigne All power is giuen to you The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them The heart of the King is in the hand of God I will giue them a King in mine anger My sonne feare the Lord and the King Feare God honour the King and euery where the like speeches Lastly seeing this temporall power and Iurisdiction of the Pope whereof we speake is not found to be comprised neither in the expresse word of God in the Scriptures nor by the tradition of the Apostles receiued as it were by hand nor practised by vse and custome in the Church for these thousand yeeres and more or exercised by any Pope nor allowed and commended nay not so much as mentioned by the ancient Fathers in the Church I pray you what necessitie of faith should force vs to admit it or with what authoritie can they perswade the same vnto vs Our opinion say they is prooued by reasons and examples how glad say I would I be that that were true But wee ought chiefely to know this that onely those reasons are fit to prooue this opinion of theirs whereof euident proofes and demonstrations are made which none of them hath hitherto brought nor as I thinke could bring For as touching reasons onely probable and likely whereof Dialectike syllogismes doe consist their force is not such as can conclude and giue away from Kings and Princes their soueraigne authoritie from them seeing that euen in daily brables about trifling matters nothing can be concluded vnlesse the Cause of the Suiter bee prooued by manifest and euident proofes and witnesses and therefore the Actor not proouing he that is conuented although himselfe performe nothing shall carie the businesse But the helpe is very weake and feeble in Examples because they onely shew what was done not what ought to be done those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimonie of the Scriptures which seeing they are thus let vs now see with what reasons the Aduersaries continue their opinion CHAP. XIII THere is not one amongst them all who are of the Popes partie as I said before who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharpely or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉 than the worthy Diuine Bellarmine whom I mention for honors sake who although he gaue as much to the Popes authoritie in temporalities as honestly hee might and more then he ought yet could hee not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist Who affirmed that hee had supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the whole earth and all Peoples Countries and Nations committed vnto him not by humane but by diuine ordinance And therefore he was very neere by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to haue abolished all the writings of that Doctor which do oppugne heresie with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report to me Which matter comforts me if peraduenture that which I would not any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholikes to read my bookes Let him doe what he will but he shall neuer bring to passe that I euer forsake the Catholike Apostolike and Romish faith wherein I haue liued from a Child to this great age or dye in another profession of faith then which was prescribed by Pius the 4. We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are fiue in number leauing others especially Bozius his fancies which are vnworthy that a man of learning should trouble himselfe to refute The first reason is which Bellarmine propounds in these wordes The ciuill power is subiect to the spirituall power when each of them is a part of the Christian common-wealth therefore a spirituall Prince may command ouer temporall Princes and dispose of temporall matters in order to a spirituall good for euery superiour may command his inferiour And least any peraduenture elude this reason by denying the Proposition with the next he labours to strengthen the same by three reasons or Media as they call them Now that ciuill power not onely as Christian but also as Ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiastike as it is such first it is prâ—â—ued by the ends of them both for the temporall end is subordinate to the spirituall end as it appeares because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore ought to be referred to the felicitie eternall Now it is plaine out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate as the ends are subordinate Secondly Kings and Bishops Cleargie and Laitie doe not make two common wealthes but one that is one Church for we are all one bodie Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth 12. But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one of another but it is no right assertion that spirituall things depend on temporall therefore temporall things depend of spirituall and are subiect to them Thirdly if a temporall administration hinder a spirituall good in all mens iudgement the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment yea euen with the losse of a temporall good therefore it is a signe
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
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
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
〈◊〉 for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus forced the Queene to depart out of Illiricum and to pay a great yeerely tribute Will any man heere say that the â—eâ—iaâ—ites Troianes Illyrians were vanquished and repressed by the Leuite Menclaus or Coruncanus now dead and not rather by them who for their sakes tooke armes and punished the enemies In like manner will any say it is the ecclesiastike Common-wealth which bridles and reduceth into order the temporall playing vpon them with much iniurious and insolent demeanour and not rather an other temporall state which enters in armes for the sake of the Ecclesiastike republique and without whose helpe the Church her selfe and all her Orders would lie troden and trampled vnder foote What if there bee no temporall state which will or dare contest with this state which is enemie to the Ecclesiastike common-wealth by what meanes then will she reuenge herselfe To vse few wordes although we grant them their comparison and conclusion there can nothing bee made of it but that the Pope hath such a power to dispose of temporall matters of Christians and to depose Princes as either the King of France is knowen to haue ouer the English Spaniards or other neighbour people who doe him wrong or any of these vpon the State and Kings of France if they haue offended them which power in what manner and of what proportion it is can onely be determined and decided by the sword CHAP. XIX THese although they may suffice for the refuting of the second reason yet least in these writings of this most learned man I should passe ouer any thing which because it is either vntouched or negligently handled might beget any error or cast any scruple into the Reader it is a matter worth the paines to examine and sift what that might be which for the strengthning of his reason he brings out of S. Bernard in the bookes de Consid. ad Eugen Bernard indeed aduiseth that the materiall sword is to be exercised by the souldiers hand at the becke of the Priest and commandement of the Emperour which we surely confesse for warres both are vndertaken more iustly and discharged more happily when the Ecclesiasticall holines doth agree conspire with kingly authoritie But we must note he attributeth only to the Priest a Becke that is the consent and desire to wage warre but to the Emperour the commandement and authoritie Whereby it is euident that hee speaketh in no other respect that the Materiall sword belongeth to the Church then for that in a Christian estate although the authoritie and command for warre be in the power of Emperours Kings and Princes yet warres are with more iustice waged where the consent of the Ecclesiastike power comes in which being guided by the spirit of God can more sharpely and truly iudge between right and wrong godly or vngodly But what if the Emperour will not draw his sword at the becke of the Priest nay what if he shall draw it against the Priests beck and assent doth S. Bernard in this case giue to the Priest any temporall power ouer the Emperour for this is it which we seeke in this place and whereon our whole disputation turneth surely none at all But he rather teacheth that none belongeth to him whenas he saith that the Materiall sword by which sword the soueraigne power temporall is signified may not bee exercised by the Church but onely by the hand of the souldier and commandement of the Emperour Which same point Gratianus deliuers more plainly being almost S. Bernards equall When Peter saith he who was first of all the Apostles chosen by the Lord did vse the materiall word that he might defend his Master from the iniurie of the Iewes he heard Turne thy sword into the seabbard for euery one who takes the sword shall perish by the sword as if it had beene told him openly Hitherto it was lawfull for the and thy Predecessors to prosequâ—te the enemies of God with the temporall sword heereafter for an example of Patience turne thy sword that is hitherto granted to thee into the scabbard and yet exercise the spirituall sword which is the word of God in the kiling of thy former life for euery one besides him or his authoritie who vseth lawfull power who as the Apostle saith beareth not the sword without cause to whom also euery soule ought to be subiect I say euery one who without such a warrant receiueth the sword shall perish by the sword If these of Bernard and Gratian bee true it can by no meanes be that the Pope should with any right exercise temporall power vpon the Emperour or other secular Princes for it cannot be exercised but by the sword and the sword cannot be by the souldier drawen but by their commandement and so this temporall power would prooue vtterly vaine and vnprofitable in the person of the Pope when as the execution thereof should bee denied him Vnlesse some Emperour perchance should be besotted with so fatall a fatuitie that he would command the souldiers to beare armes against himselfe or should be indued with so great sanctitie and iustice that he doe by his edict signifie that they should not spare himselfe if hee should offend Hitherto belongs that which S. Ambrose writeth The law saith he forbiddeth not to strike and therefore peraduenture Christ said to Peter offering two swordes It is enough as though it were lawfull vntill the Gospell that there might be in the Law an instruction of equitie in the Gospell perfection of goodnesse Besides we must vnderstand that that place of the Gospell touching two swords which they obiect vnto vs is not necessarily to be vnderstood of the Temporall and Spirituall swords yea that it is far more agreeable to the speech of our Sauior in that place that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall sword and the sword of the Passion as Amb. expoundeth it learnedly and holily in that place For Christ in that last speech with the Disciples before his Passion admonished them that they should be sent to preach the Gospell of a few other manner of conditions after his death came they should receiue this commandement Euntes in Mundum vniuersum predicate Euangelium vniuersae Creaturae then before they had beene sent by him when as yet he liued with them in the earth as if he had said hitherto I haue so sent you as you haue needed neither bagge nor girdle nor shooes but heereafter I will send you to preach the Gospell and you will haue neede of a bagge and a scrip to wit of Care and Patience and also of the two swords the Spirituall and that of the Passion whereof it is said A sword shall pierce thy soule for there is a Spirituall sword saith Ambrose in that place that thou shouldest sell thy patrimony purchase the word whereby the naked inward reines of the soule are cloathed and furnished There is also a sword of
the Passion that thou put of thy body that with the cast cloathes of thy flesh sacrifised thou maiest buy a crowne of Martyrdome which thou maiest gather out of the blessings of the Lord who preached that it was the summe of all Crownes if a man suffer persecution for righteousnesse Lastly that you may know of what passion he spake least he should trouble the mindes of his Disciples he brought foorth the example touching himselfe saving Because as yet that which is written ought to be fulfilled in me that he was reputed with the iniust Thus he To which I will at last adioyne that Bellarmine himselfe in the bookes de summo Pontifice prooueth that it is not the meaning of that place of the Gospell that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall and Temporall sword I answered saith he that no mention is made in that place of the Gospell of the Spirituall and Temporall sword of the Pope but onely that by those words the Lord would admonish his Disciples that in the time of his passion they should be in those straightes and in that feare wherein they are wont to be who are glad to sell their câ—ate to buy them a sword withall Where vpon hee affirmeth that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the viij did mystically onely interpret this place of the two swords Which seeing it is so and that it is certaine both by the interpretation of the Fathers and also by the confession of Bellarmine himselfe that the words of our Sauiour are not truely properly and strictly to be taken of those swords about which all our swords are drawen and we together by the eares surely then that speech of Bernard is very wrongfully alleadged to prooue that the Pope in any case hath Temporal power ouer Christian Princes or that the Temporall sword is vnder the Spirituall sword the which neither S. Bernard saith there neither â—â—uld so say without wresting and peruerting the place Therefore although we grant neuer so much that the place is to be vnderstood mystically of the Spirituall and Temporall sword yet that exposition of Bernards will onely worke thus much that we may vnderstand that Christian Kings and Princes ought to wage warre for the Church by the Counsell of the Church or of the Pope Which no sober man will euer deny And so Christ if in this manner we vnderstand his words mystically two swords being shewed said Satis est not to signifie that one sword should be subiect to the other or that both of them should be in the hand of the Pope and the Priests for that exposition is faulty and is repugnant both to right reason and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers wherein it is taught that Kings and Emperours haue God onely for their superiour in temporalities but to admonish vs that there should be at the last in the Christian Common-wealth a meeting and concourse of both the swords Spirituall and Temporall when Princes should be conuerted to the faith and that by them two the Church should be euery way protected and defended from iniury But because we are fallen into this notable place of S. Bernard I would wish the reader by the way diligently to consider with me that which I know not whether any hath obserued heretofore What is the reason that he writing to Eugenius the Pope of the temporall sword first saith tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus Then a few lines after doth adde that the same sword is to be vsed nutu sacerdotis and addes not forsitan Doth that same forsitan either abound in the former sentence or faile in the latter The truth is that the godly and wise man did it of purpose that he might with some finenesse distinguish the person of the Pope from the pontificall or sacerdotall authority and office and teach that it importeth very much whether the Pope or Eugenius although both Pope and Eugenius were the same doe bid or forbid any thing I meane whether the Pope as a man obnoxious to the perturbations of the mind would haue the sword drawen not for the Church according to the duty of his function but by the instigation of a corrupt affection or as a Priest that is a good and holy man doe command or refuse that the sword should be drawen and war waged seruing not his owne turne but the profit of the Church As if he should say ô Eugenius cheefe Bishop the temporall sword is not absolutely and simply to be drawen at thy commandement but peraduenture euen then when as for the euident commodity of the Church you shall aduise them with wise and sound counsell who haue the sword in their power but not then when as out of the desire you haue either to practise ancient enmity with any or to powre out any new conceiued hatred or to satisfie any ambitious desire to rule you shall purpose to set christian Kings and people by the eares or to wage and bring any was upon them For that is a point of a Priest this of a Man For that is a meditation and action of a Priest this of a man that of a Bishop this of Eugenius or some other that holds the Bishops sea That this was S. Bernards meaning in those words the actions of certaine Bishops who haue beene beyond measure transported with anger and pride haue plainly declared But let vs returne to our purpose CHAP. XX. THe third reason in Bellarmine is It is not lawfull for 〈◊〉 to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an be 〈◊〉 vncendeauour to draw his subiects to heresie or 〈◊〉 But to iudge whether a King doe draw to heresie or 〈…〉 Pope to whom the charge of religion is committeâ— Ergo It belongs to the Pope to iudge that a King is to be 〈◊〉 not to be â—epoâ—ed And he labours to prooue thâ— proposition of this reason by three arguments Therefore I answer to that That he saith that it is not 〈…〉 to tolerate a King that is an heretike or an 〈◊〉 c. that this proposition is as false as false may be Otherwise all antiquity is to be condemned which did beare with great submission and patience Kings hereticall and infidelâ— who went about to destroy the Church of God 〈…〉 propter conâ—cientiam that is not 〈◊〉 that they wanted strength to enforce â—icked 〈…〉 that they iudged that they might not by the law oâ— God But becauâ—â— we haue in our books against the 〈…〉 and also aâ—oue in this booke we haue 〈…〉 hurtfull and mischieuous erâ—â—â— there is no cause whâ— we should dwell any long 〈…〉 the faâ—â—â—ood thereof It only remaineth that 〈…〉 shâ—w the faults of the arguments wherewith 〈…〉 to prooue his false proposition I 〈◊〉 first argument he fâ—tches out of Deuteronâ—mie where the people is forbidden to chuse a King which is not 〈…〉 brethren that is who is not a Iew least he dâ—aw them to idolatry therefore also Christians
are forbidden to 〈◊〉 one that is no christian Grant all this be true Then 〈◊〉 these parts thus granted he proceeds in this 〈◊〉 Againe It is equally dangerous and hurtfull to chuse one that is not a Christian not to depose a non Christian as it is known Ergo Christians are bound not to suffer euer them a King not Christian if he endeuour to turne the people from the â—auâ— I answer that this consequence is not good and that by such vitious and deceitfull manner of arguing many are turned from the truth Now the fallacy is in this that he determines and assumes for certaine that there is law wheresoeuer the same hurt or danger is which I shall prooue presently to be most false Neither is it like that which the 〈◊〉 deliuer vâ—â—â—adem ratio est â—us idem esse 〈◊〉 Therefore we must obserue that he doth not saâ—e 〈◊〉 dempâ—â—â—att esse eligere non Christianum non deponere non Christianum that it is as faulty or vnlawfull c. which if he had said I had denied the antecedent but he saith 〈…〉 esse that it is as hurtful and dangerous c. whence he doth falsly gather that Christians are â—ound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian. For it followeth not where the same harme and danger is that the same power to doe any thing is granted to the party who is 〈◊〉 or endangered nor where equall harme and danger is there also is equall sinne or merit and this may be easily prooued by examples He that re 〈◊〉 ounds or is spoiled of his goods suffers the same danger and mischeefe whether it be by force from a robber or a wandring souldier or that he be oppressed of a Magistrate by an vniust sentence But the same remedy is not prouided against both these to run vpon a robber and to kill him in defense of himselfe and his goods it is very lawfull reseruing as they say the moderation of the defensiue resistance that it be without blame But it is not likewise lawfull to resist a Magistrate who according to the power of his iurisdiction had passed an vniust sentence against him by reason of the authority which iudgements and matters iudged vse to haue Marke I pray you although in both respects there be the like harme and losse to him that is spoiled yet the same law is not of force in both places Againe it is a matter of the same danger and hurt deliberately to enter into a ship whose keeâ—e you know to be â—â—aken and hath sprung a leake and to enter into that which you take to be sound when as indeed she is rotten and full of leakes I say it is a matter equally dangerous not equally vnlawfull In the first case you tempt God and procure to your selfe your owne death but in the later it 〈◊〉 haue vsed all possible diligence you doe not offend it ignorantly you commit your selfe to such a ship So it is a matter of the same danger and hurt to mary a woman for her wealth or beauty which you know to be â—â— an vnquiet and a 〈◊〉 disposition and by chance to light vpon one which you doe not know to be such a one And yet he that casts himself into so manifest a danger seemeth greatly to offend who in the shaping of the course of his life doth tempt God But he that being ignorant of his to tune and of the moroâ—â—ty and sharpnesse of the woman shall mary her not only committeth nothing against God but by his daily troubles and miseries if he beare them with a strong and patient minde doth please him as it were by a certaine kind of martirdome I â—ight produce many examples of this kind to conuince the captiousnesse of this argument of Bellarmines Therefore as it followeth not if he that knowes a woman to be extreamly wicked and so froward that there is no hope to huâ— with her in peace and quietnesse ought not to take her to wife because by that act he doth cast himselfe into 〈◊〉 danger that he also who casually and vnwittingly haâ—h light of such a one ought to forsake or refuse her notwithstanding the bond of matrimony although it be a matter of the same danger and hurt if he keepe her In like manner it followeth not if Christians be bound not to chuse a King who is no Christian or an heretike that they are â—ound also not to endure him being now chosen because many things hinder a businesse which is to be done which doe not dissolue the same being done as we haue other where shewed at large And this is sufficient to weaken the force of this argument CHAP. XXI BVt yet I am constrayned to stay heere a little longer that I may further discouer and represse another errour which he adioynes as a Complement to his former reason for to confirme that which he said That Christians are bound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian c. And because he would haue none to doubt of this proposition because in times past Christians did both tolerat and honour many Princes euen because they were Princes without any scruple of conscience which were partly Heathen partly Heretikes that I say he might preuent with some solution this so strong an obiection and so peremptory against his former positioÌ„ he presently adioyneth these words Now if Christians in times past did not depose Nero and Dioclâ—tianus and Iulianus the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because the Christians wanted temporall strongth For that otherwise they might iustly haue done it appeareth by the Apostle 1. Cor. 6. where hee commands that new Iudges in Temporall causes should be set ouer the Christians least the Christians should be enforced to bring their causes and debate them before a Iudge that was a persecutor of Christ. For as new Iudges might be appointed so also might new Princes and Kings haue beene for the same cause if they had had strength sufficient for such an enterprise Heere be many things worthy to be reprehended and which I doe much maruell that a man so learned and trained in authors both sacred and prophane would euer commit to writing For first he saith that the want of strength was the cause why Christians in times past did not depose Nero Dâ—â—cleâ—ian Iulian Ualens and the like we haue sufficiently declared to be most false by cleere and vndoubted testimonies in our bookes Deregno and also aboue in this booke and will foorth with demonstrate euen out of the Principles laid and granted by himselfe Secondly there is nothing moreâ—oâ—d nor more vnreasonable yeâ— that I may speake it without offence of so great a man nothing more 〈…〉 to alledge the authority of S. Paul for to giue grace and creâ—â—t to 〈…〉 proposition in whose writing there is not so 〈…〉 one word which without 〈…〉 â—â—construction and â—auâ—â—l can be applied 〈…〉 they
Propositions and therefore if we grant them it cannot bee denied Therefore all this is true and wee grant it all but yet that which hee annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion is neither agreeable nor consequent which is that the Pastor may enioine the people c. For to be able or not to be able posse where the right and equity is disputed ought to bee vnderstoode not of the mere act but of the power which is lawfully permitted and which agreeth with law and reason So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that which hee is able to doe iustly and honestly And so the matter is brought about as we are enforced to enquire whether the Pope by the plenitude of his Apostolicke power as they speake can command enioine subiects that they dare not be so bold as to obey the edicts commandements lawes of their Prince vnder paine of excommunication And if he shall de facto commaund the law whether the Subiects are bound to obey any such commandement of the Pope Surely as I touched in the beginning for the Affirmatiue I could neuer in my life either my selfe find a waighty argument nor light vpon any inuented by an other But the contrary proposition is strongly maintained being built vpon the foundation which we spake of ere while viz. That the Pope cannot in any sort dispense against a law of nature and of God Vpon which ground is raised a most firme argument in my opinion which is concluded in this forme The Pope can commaund or dispense in nothing against the law Naturall and Diuine But to commaund or dispense in the matter of subiection and obedience due to Princes is against law naturall and Diuine Ergo The Pope cannot commaund or dispense in the same and by consequence cannot commaund the subiects that they doe not obey their temporall Prince in that wherein the Prince is superiour to him and if he shall de facto commaund it shall be lawfull for the subiects to disobey him with safety and good conscience as one that presumes to giue lawes without the compasse of his territory or iurisdiction Both the Propositions are most certaine Out of which the Conclusion is induced by a necessary consecution He that shall weaken the force of this Argument shall doe mee a very great pleasure and make me beholding to him For my part that I may ingenuously confesse my slender wit I doe not see in the world how it can bee checked by any sound reason for though it may bee said that obedience due to a superiour may bee restrained and hindered by him who is superiour to that superiour and that the Pope who is Father of all Christians is superiour to all Kings and Princes Christian in this that he is Father and therefore that hee may of his owne authority inhibite and restraine that the subiects doe not performe the reuerence and obedience due and promised to the Prince yet this reason is like a painted ordinance not able to beat down the strength of the former conclusion Seeing this which is said that obedience du to a superiour may be diminished or restrained or taken away by his commaundement who is superiour to that superiour this is true onely then when he who forbiddeth it is superiour in the same kind and line of power and superiority or in those things wherein obedience is due As for example the King may take frō the Lieutenant of his Armie his commaund and giue charge that the Armie obey him no more and the Lieutenant may vpon cause commaund that the souldier obey not the Tribune nor the Tribune the Centurion nor the Centurion the Decurion For that all these in the same kind I meane about militarie gouernment discipline but one aboue an other are superiour according to the order of dignity The same is true in the orders of the heauenly warfare and of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchie But the obedience of the subiects towards the Prince whereof wee speake consisteth in temporall matters wherein the Popes themselues confesse that there is none aboue the Prince But if none bee aboue him in temporalities surely it followeth that there is none that may forbid or hinder the subiection and obedience which is due to him from his subiects in temporalities I haue shewed aboue that these powers the spirituall and temporall are so distinct that neither as it is such doth commaund or serue the other And that they are not to be regarded who flie to their starting holes of distinctions and quirkes or rather those snares of verball captions by these words directè indirectè For it is most sure that hee hath a superiour in temporalties whome an other may in any sort commaund a-about temporall matters or who in temporall causes may bee iudged directly or indirectly by an other For iudgement is giuen of one against his will And no man is iudged but of his superiour Because an equall hath no commaund ouer an equall And indeed for the effect and issue of the matter there is no difference at all whether one haue authority and power ouer an other directly or indirectly For in those wordes directè indirectè or if you please directly and obliquely the difference is propounded to vs onely in the maner and way or order of obtaining and comming by the former but not in the liberty force and effect of exercising and executing the same But good God what can bee said more vnreasonably or more contrary to the selfe then this that a King hath no superiour in temporalties but is free from all bands of offences nor is brought to punishment by any lawes which all antiquitie and the whole Church hath euer held and againe that the Pope vpon cause or in some manner that is to say Indirectly is superiour to the King in temporalties and may punish him with temporall punishments that is with losse of kingdom rule yea life also For after that he is once defected thrown down from his throne by the Pope and reduced to the condition of a priuate man what remaineth but that he should vndergoe the last issue of this malice and that is either to prouide for his safety by speedy flight and so liue a miserable life out of his Countrey or if hee doe not in this manner prouide for himselfe bee will forthwith bee arraigned and conuinced in publike iudgment and then fall into the hands of a Gaoler or an Executioner and so there will be an end of him Now there is in this power which these good fellowes doe attribute indirectly to the Pope a soueraigne free and vncontrolled libertie to oppresse and to exercise tyrannie euen ouer good and innocent Kings For first of all they ordaine That it belongeth to the Pope to iudge if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed Secondly that there is no appeale from his iudgement Because he alone iudgeth all
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
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
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
ministerie likewise of the Pope whereof the former from the Synagogue to the Church although it may be rightly concluded in forme as they say yet it commeth short for the purpose because it offendeth in matter because the Synagogue hath neuer had any temporall power ouer Kings And the latter is not of force but in that case that the same may befall to the Pope now which befell to Samuel in those times viz. that as the Lord spake to Samuel touching Saul so he should speake to the Pope by name about the abdication of some certaine King and of substituting an other in his place For in this case it cannot bee denied but that the authoritie of the Pope is equall to Samuels and his Ministerie alike in executing the Commandement of God But if not I meane if the Lord hath not expresly spoken to the Pope in his eare I pray you how can it be that when he desires by his owne proper authoritie to thrust any King out of his Throne that he should maintaine that hee doth it by the example of Samuel whom God did delegate by a speciall charge and an extraordinarie mission to signifie his decree touching the abdication of Saul Samuel knew certainely that God had reiected Saul and all his race that they should not raigne for the Lord told him so much But the Pope knowes not whether God haue reiected that Prince whom he desires to depose vnlesse God hath specially reuealed it to him Seeing there is nothing more certaine by the Scriptures then that God doth for diuers causes tolerate wicked Kings and contemners of his word and doth cause them to raigne for the time whom when it pleaseth him he either conuerteth to him or euerteth and ouerthroweth And it happeneth often that they whom the Pope who iudgeth according to outward appearance pronounceth vnworthie to raigne by their present conditions and state of life those the Lord to whom all things are present declareth to be most worthie to raigne their mindes being conuerted to holinesse and grace whereof not â—ong agone we haue seen a memorable example now in our age For who knoweth not I speake it to the honour and glorie of this great King that HENRY the IV. who now most happily gouerneth the sterne of the Kingdome of France and I pray God he may gouerne long was not onely excommunicate by Gregorie and Sixtus Popes but also was so reiected and abandoned and depriued of all right of Kingdome that by their censures they declared him vncapable of any kingdome or gouernment whatsoeuer whose iudgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorne and demonstrated that the King which was reproued by them was most worthie of a worthie Kingdome Seeing then these things stand thus and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God how can the Pope know and vnderstand the pleasure and will of God vnlesse like vnto Samuel he be aduertised before Therefore that which Sanders saith That King who shall refuse to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope c. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to excute those things which the Lord shall command him by speciall reuelation For otherwise what shall we say Philip the Faire did he therefore disdaine to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope because he would not heare Boniface swelling with a most proud ambition that it should bee thought that he might bee by Boniface depriued of the right of his crowne and an other to bee substituted in his place What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not heare Iulius the II. being complete armed and playing the souldier rather then the Pope did hee seeme to haue contemned God speaking by the mouth of the Pope so farre is both he and his fauoureâ—s should deserue to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdomes at the pleasure of man that boiled inwardlie with a priuate hatred against him To belieue such matters good Lord should I tearme it ignorance or madnesse But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by vs. His second argument to confesse plainely the weaknesse of my witte I doe not well vnderstand to what purpose it aimeth For that it may haue some strength and force to proue the point which is in hand and to bee consequent and agreable to that which is concluded we must of force admit two most false suppositions as true and necessary Whereof one is That they who either did foretell any thing that should come to passe by reuelation from God or by his commaundement willed any thing to bee done might by their own right I meane by their proper authority and ordinary vertue of then office without any speciall reuelation or commaundement from God commaunde the same whatsoeuer it was to be done or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselues As though Ahias the Silonite whome God had sent to Ieroboam with a speciall charge that hee should tell him that he will giue him ten Tribes out of the Kingdome of Salomon in these words Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel Behold I will rent the Kingdome out of the hand of Salomon and will giue theeten Tribes As though I say Ahias without any such expresse commaundement of God without any speciall reuelation might haue called Ieroboam or any other into Salomons Kingdome or into part thereof Then which nothing can bee said more falsly or foolishly And the other supposition is that all Priests and Prophets of the old law had authority to bestow to take away kingdoms so farre forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people which also is most false neither is there to bee found in all the scriptures any example or steppe or taken of the same Seeing then the whole force of this second argument is so grounded on these two false suppositions that it cannot bee rightly concluded except they be granted that it is euident enough that there is no firme consequence ápotestate delegatia Principe ad potestatem ordi 〈◊〉 that is from the authority of a Committee from a Prince to the authority of an ordinary officer who doth not see by his owne iudgement without much Logicke that all this busines which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias is as farre as may be from that which he hath vndertaken to proue The third argument also is euen of the same stuffe for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias for the speciall execution of certaine busines to the ordinary office of the Pope or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be Elias at the Lords commaundement by name for that Sanders omitted which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame annointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Eliseus a Prophet for him Ergo the Pope may take away and giue kingdoms and principalities as hee shall thinke good For
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
THe sixth is of Zacharie saith hee who being desired by the Nobilitie of France deposed Childerique and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus to be created King in his place Before I speake any thing of this example it is worth my paines to vnfold the darke storie touching the same and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie ioining the circumstances on both sides together with the opinion for proofe whereof it is brought and by this meane it may more easily appeare to the Reader how small strength it hath to confirme the proposition of the aduersaries First of all therefore in that story it is worthy the obseruation that Childerique and diuers other Meroningians that were Kings before him raigning without any authoritie at all in their Kingdomes had nothing but the vaine and idle name of a King For the treasure and power of the State were in the hands of the Officers who were called the Maiors of the Palace and who indeede swaied the whole gouernment of the Kingdome who were so much aboue the Kings and ordered and gouerned them as the King possessed nothing of his owne besides the idle name of the King and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life which the Maior of the Palace made him in his discretion but one poore Lordship in the Country of a small reuenew and in that a house where hee kept a few seruants to attend him for his necessarie seruices and to wait vpon him as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemaine If any then doe looke more neerely into the matter he shall finde that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France one who like the King in the â—hesse had onely the name of a King but no kingly authoritie as Atmoinus speaketh but the other who was called the Maior of the Palace in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdome He in name onely was vnder the King but in authoritie and power ouer the King so as he wanted nothing but the name for the full and absolute Maiestie of ruling and raigning which also at the last was giuen him by the people that the soueraigne gouernment which he swaied might be signified by the title of a soueraigne honour Therfore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel father of Pipine who ouerthrew a huge Armie of Saracens rushing into France out of Spaine King Charles saith hee hauing beaten and ouercome the armies of his enemies vnder Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victorie returned home in safetie into France the seat of his gouernment Marke how he calles the Maior of the palace a King by reason of that royall authority which he bare Secondly in that storie is to bee obserued that the Nobilitie of France being weary of the slothfulnesse of their idle Kings did with a wonderfull consent conuert their eies and hearts to Pipine Maior of the Palace sonne to Charles which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdome that hee openly without nicenesse affected the name of a King which that hee might more easily compasse without mislike and displeasure of the Commons he resolued that the Pope was first to be dealt withall by an Embassadour and his assent to be required iudging indeede as the truth was that if the Pope should giue his assent that the Commons would easily rest in his iudgement by reason of the holinesse and reuerend opinion of the See Apostolique Thirdly we must vnderstand that Zacharie the Pope was generally aduised withall in the cause of the Kings which raigned at that time in France whether ought to bee called King he who had only the name of a King and no royall authoritie or he who by his industrie and wisdome did manage and gouerne all the affaires of the State and that hee the same Pope answered generally againe that it were better that he should be called King in whom the soueraigne authoritie did reside by which answer the Nobilitie being induced doe elect Pipine King There is no question but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi that is in particular that Childerique was to bee abandoned who carried onely the false name of a King and that Pipine was in his place to bee aduanced to the Crowne But I suppose that hee answered so generally for that the proposition being deliuered in generall tearmes carried no note of any certaine person and left to the Nobilitie of France their iudgement entire and free to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique but gaue his assent with the Deposers But because his consent was especially regarded therfore certaine Historians doe precisely say that hee deposed Childerique Lastly in that storie it must be seriously and diligentlie weighed that Zacharie the Pope hauing heard Pipinus his Embassadours touching the change of the Kingdome and deposition of Childerique iudged it to bee a matter of such noueltie and difficultie also as at the first hee durst not entertaine the thought of so great an enterprise although that by this time he had vnderstood sufficiently that the sloth and idlenesse of the Merouingians did greatly endammage the Church and Christian Common-wealth vntill such time as hee was certainely perswaded and saw that the whole nobility of France did fauour Pipin and desire him for their King and moreouer that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merouingians without children so dull and blockish That he could not tell how to grieue for the losse of his kingdome as was fit for him neither was there any that would mone his case These were the inducements which being ioined with a speciall loue affection which the Pope did beare to Pipine for that he and his father Charles had with many good offices deserued well of the Church of Rome and Apostolicke Sea did moue Zacharie to essent to the French who desired this change of their Kings These things although they be in this manner written touching this businesse yet haue we great cause to doubt of the iustice of that fact I know that Bellarmine in other places out of too much good opinion of the equity of this fact of Zachary doth boldly affirme that no sober man wil deny that that Act was iust But he alledgeth nothing but that the wisest man liuing may affirm for all that that it was iniust I say he brings no probable and forcible reason whereby a wise man may perswade himselfe that the Pope did iustly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke since that in no case we ought to doe ill that good although it be very great may come thereof Now wee haue sufficienly declared that for a lawfull King to bee deposed by his owne subiects or to consent to the deposers seeing hee hath God onely aboue him to whome onely he is bound to yeeld account of his actions is by it selfe and simply euill And the two reasons which he vseth