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
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
Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest as the aduersary dreameth because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry and Childerike who succeeded no lesse lawfully but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people these she might Thus he in which words he yeeldeth a double reason of the diuersity wherefore the Church endured Constantius Iulianus Valens Valentinianus the yonger Anastasius Heraclius and other hereticall Princes but did not forbeare Leo Isaurus Henry IV. Childerike and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing One forsooth because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to haue been ready rather to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes The other because the Church or the Pope could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius Iulianus Valens and the rest of that sort aboue mentioned but as for Leo Henry Childerike and the others she could therefore them she endured these she endured not But let vs see if both the reasons of this diuersity be not false and grounded vpon mere and strange falshoods and yet none hath assigned any better nor as I thinke can assigne any saue only that which doth vtterly ouerthrow the cause of the aduersaries which is that the Church did tolerate those former Emperors and Princes because as yet that blind ambition was not crept into her by which the succeeding Popes caried away with greedinesse of glory vsurped that temporall iurisdiction whereof we speake Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spirituall iurisdiction which they exercised with indifferency vpon all persons did wholly forbeare the temporall power which they did know that it belonged not vnto them so recommending the cause of the Church to the iudgement of God did with humility and patience expect the conuersion or confusion of wicked Princes But I returne to the reasons giuen by this Author that we may see how faulty they are And indeed to deale plainly his former reason or cause of diuersity seemeth to me very vnworthy and vnfit to be alleadged by any Catholike much lesse by a Diuine which I euen for this cause haue much a doe to read without teares For what are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be souldiors then Martyrs or to defend the law of God the Church rather by swords then by sermons But he saith not so may some say What then either he saith nothing or all together some such thing For his meaning is that the difference of these and those former times as touching the coertion of Princes consisteth in this that then the Bishops ought rather to haue been fit to vndergoe Martirdome then to reduce Princes into order Which being so who can not easily perceiue by his proper iudgement and naturall logike that either this reason stands not vpon dissimilia that is termes of vnlikenesse or that is to be placed in the other part which we haue set downe And yet I dare boldly affirme that there neuer time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselues to Martirdome The lion euery where gapeth for his pray the wolfe stands watching at the sheepfolds most mighty Kings and Princes many Nations and people buckle themselues and arme against the flocke of Christ and doth this man thinke that the time doth not require that the Bishops should not expose themselues to Martirdome and lay downe their liues for the sheepe what when the Church flourished and was spread thorough the whole world the Bishops ought to hope and looke for nothing but Martirdome and now when matters are come to this passe that the Church is grieuously tossed and tumbled and as it were crouded into a corner of Europe may the Bishops bend their mindes without all feare of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martirdome what because in these daies they maintaine great traines and retinues and troopes of horse and foote to defend themselues their liues and Persons and by force and armes to deliuer the Church from the iniurie of so many Princes and people that spoile her Or rather because now adaies very few vndertake the Bishoprickes with that minde and condition that they should be encombred and vexed with those troubles either of minde or bodie which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith but that they may passe their life with case and pleasure and that they may aduance and magnifie their owne house and bloud by the goods of the poore and Patrimonie of Christ Or lastly because that being hirelings and mercenarie Pastors they doe beleeue that it is very lawfull for them when the Wolfe comes and teares the Flocke to take their heeles and to auoide Martirdome I doe not bring forth these things to cast iniurie or enuie vpon the Ecclesiasticall order which I euer reuerenced and honoured from a child Neither doe I doubt but there are many who doe keepe most carefully and watchfully the flocke committed to them being ready vpon all occasions euen with their bodies to defend the sheepe committed to their keeping and with their bloud to seale the confession of Christ. But I speake all this in reproofe of the former answere and with all to their shame who now in euery place affect the dignities of the Church without any purpose of life fit for the Church but that they themselues may liue brauely and gallantly and that they may consume that wealth which the puritie of an Ecclesiasticall life doth well deserue vpon vses either vnlawfull or surely not necessarie very dishonestly and to the great scandall of the Church O the times O the manners of men The greatest part of the Christian common weale within these hundred yeeres or there abouts is vtterly perished Euen by this very meane that many Bishops and Priests being more forward to armes then to Martirdome haue vnaduisedly followed the meaning of the former answere supposing forsooth that which was not so that Heresie might easily bee oppressed by armes while themselues in the meane time held their owne course of life that is cherished their owne former pleasure and slothfulnesse Therefore they saw the Wolfe comming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolues themselues I speake no secrets now Scotland and England are my witnesses and other Countries which are slipped into* heresie wherein although many resisted manfully yet the greatest part of the Church-men did not endure so much as the first assault but presently in shamefull manner put in practise their treason and defection partly that they might enioy the fauour to liue freely which was both promised and permitted vnto them by the Nouators partly least that they being depriued of all their present meanes should fall to beggerie whereas if like those first Fathers in times past they had
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
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
destroied Iulianus Whom if you consider their valour and resolution the vse and experience of armes if opportunitie the easie accesse of souldiers to their Commanders in those times if disposition the feruent heat of their mindes burning with desire of Martyrdome and vndertaking any thing for the defence of the faith would haue made them much more ready and eager to deliuer the Church by some notorious action from the treacherie and tyrannie of such a villanous person much more I say then any precipitate rashnesse could set on a brainsicke and furious monke What may we thinke that the Christians of that time did heare the famous trumpets of the Gospel Athanasius Basilius both the Gregories Cyrillus Epihanius Hilarius Hosius and many other Bishops excelling in vertue and learning who by reason of their learning could not be ignorant what interest the Church had ouer Princes and if they had knowen and vnderstood the same by reason of their great sanctitie of life and constancie in aduersitie would not haue held their peace and dissembled the same in so importunate a businesse to the Christian common-weale What may wee thinke that those diuine Prelates taught the people that there was no remedie against that Apostata but in patience and teares for so saith Nazianzenus These things saith he did Iulianus intend he speaketh of those things which the Apostata meditated against the Church as his minions and witnesnesses of his counsels did publish notwithstanding he was restrained by the mercy of God and the teares of the Christians who were in great abundance and by many powred out when as they had this onely remedie against the Persecutors I beseech you Reader that you would obserue consider Nazianzenus well in this place He affirmeth that the Christians that is the Church had no remedie besides teares against the persecution of Iulianus when as notwithstanding it is certaine that they had at their seruice the whole armie of Iulianus Therefore surely this Pope who for his singular excellencie was called the Diuine did not thinke that the Church hath any power ouer a most vngodly Emperour to raise the Christian army against him otherwise it were false that Christians or the Church had no other remedie but teares against a persecutor for they had an armie which being commanded by the Church would easily for the cause of God haue fallen away from Iulianus Now that which we said of Constantius and Iulianus that without great difficultie they might haue beene brought into order by the Church and depriued of Scepters and life without any harme to the people the same is much more apparent in Valens and Valentinianus the yoonger For the chiefe Commanders and Captaines of Valens his armie were good Catholikes by whom hee managed all his warres being himselfe an idle and slothfull Prince and those were Terentius Traianus Arintheus Uictor and others who constantly professed the Catholike faith and boldly vpbraided the Emperour to his face with his heresie and impietie against God but in so religious a libertie they held their hands neither did their heate and anger proceed beyond the bounds of admonition because they knew it was their dutie onely to tell the Prince his faultes but not to punish the same Therefore in all matters which belonged to temporall gouernment they yeelded obedience to this heretike whom they might easily haue remoued and to the great good of the afflicted Church haue reduced backe againe the whole Monarchie to Ualentinianus a Catholike Prince from whom it came Could not these Commanders of his forces conclude a league amongst themselues against their Prince being an heretike if it had beene lawfull for them so to doe Was it not more profitable for the Church that an heretike Emperour should not gouerne Catholikes Or did the Church all that time want learned and watchfull Pastors and by that meanes either neglected or did not vnderstand her temporall interest for what which onely remaines to bee said no age did euer beare Christians more obedience and dutifull to their Prelates then that did that if so bee the Church had wanted not the power to sway Princes in temporall matters but the execution onely of that power the people and armie would not haue beene long before they had deliuered her from the tyranny of Constatius Iulianus and Valens To which the worthy testimonie of S. Augustine giues faith registred among the Canōs Iulianus saith he was an Infidel Emperour Was he not an Apostata vniust an Idolater Christian souldiers seruedan Infidell Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none but him that was in heauen When he would haue them to worship Idols to sacrifice they preferred God before him But when he said draw foorth the Companies get you against that countrey presently they obeied For they distinguished their eternall from the temporall Lord And yet for their eternall Lord his sake they were subiect euen to a temporall Lord. Who doth not see in this place that it was the easiest matter in the world for the Church euery maner of way to chastise Iulianus if the had had any temporall power ouer him For then the cause of Christ had come in question in which case the souldiers would preferre Christ before the Emperour that is the eternall Lord before the temporall Lord for the Churches cause is the cause of Christ. Therefore either the Bishops of Rome or the Popes and euen the whole Church did then beleeue for certaine that they had no temporall iurisdiction in any sort ouer secular Princes or surely they were wanting to their office nor did they so carefully prouide for the flock committed to their charge as now after many ages our last Popes haue done who maintaine very earnestly that it belongeth to a part of their Pastorall office to chastise all Princes and Monarches not onely for heresie or schisme but also for other causes and that with temporall punishment and euen to spoile them of their Empires and Kingdomes if it shall please them Whereas otherwise neither they are to be compared with those first Bishops for holinesse of life and learning and the Christian people in these times is not so obedient as in those first times they were Wherefore if we loue the truth we must confesse that no man can either accuse or excuse the Bishops of both times in this point without preuarication or calumniation the praise of each will turne to the dispraise of the other But let vs goe forward CHAP. VIII VAlentinian the yonger of all who to this day gouerned not onely an Empire but Kingdome or any Principalitie might most easily haue beene coerced and bridled by the Church for he might haue beene not onely thrust out of his Empire at the commandement of the chiefe Bishop that is the Bishop of Rome but euen at the becke and pleasure of a poore Bishop of Millane Ambrose be forsaken of his owne souldiers and guard and be reduced to the state of
a priuate man Before day saith Ambrose as soone as I set my foote out of dores the Palace was beset round about with souldiers and it is reported that word was sent the Emperour by the souldiers that if he would come forth he should haue leaue but yet that they would be ready to attend him if they saw that he did agree with the Catholikes otherwise that they would passe ouer to the companie that Ambrose gathered Not one of the Arrians durst come forth because neither any of them were Citizens a few of them of the Princes house and many of them Gothes who as before they had a Carte for their house so now a Carte is their Church And after in the same Epistle speaking of himselfe I am called a Tyrant quoth he yea and more then a Tyrant for when his friends intreated the Emperour that hee would come out to the Church and told him withall that they did it at the request of his souldiers he answered If Ambrose command you I will deliuer my selfe to be bound What say the Aduersaries to this is not this one place enough to stop all mens mouthes I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italie with a great armie gathered out of the parts of Britaine and France to prouide as hee pretended that Catholike religion should receiue no further harme and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himselfe which notwithstanding was not his onely end but that which in our age hath beene practised by diuers with this colour of Pietie he couered his burning desire of raigning for he was determined hauing now killed Gratianus at Lyons to inuade Ualentinianus his Empire Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his comming fled out of Italie into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperour of the East A matter worth the noting An Heretike being chased by a Catholike flies for succour to a Catholike of whom he is both rebuked for his heresie and for the reuerence of his Maiestie courteously receiued and restored to his kingdome And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawfull Prince Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire nor Restorer of the Church but a Rebell and a Tyrant Seeing these things stand thus I would now wish the Aduersaries that they would forbeare to abuse vs with their deuise and inuention or at least to tell vs whence they haue it Haue they read any where in any good Author that the Christians did then so much distrust their strength and power as that they durst not so much as attempt that which if they had resolutely vndertaken they had easily effected or that they made a proffer at the least but when they had tryed the fortune of the warre and all other humane meanes at last yeelded and lay downe vnder these wicked Princes Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospell that they did not vnderstand what power the Bishop or People had ouer a peruerse and hereticall Prince What did the heate of religion and the zeale of the house of God faile them Let the Aduersaries vnfould the memorie of all Records and turne ouer and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiasticall and prophane beleeue me they shall neuer finde that the Church in those times wherein it was much more powerfull than now it is did euer endeuour any thing to the mischiefe of Princes although they were wicked or euer went about to disanull their gouernment as hath beene plainly and plentifully prooued by vs in our bookes De Regno But cleane contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers of the power of secular Princes it is most certaine that all in that age did thinke that no temporall power did in any manner nor for any cause appertaine either to the Bishop of Rome or cheefe Bishop or to the whole Church but that for temporall punishments they were to be left to the iudgement of God alone And this as it seemeth was the cause why those fathers did so seldome and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes because indeed in those times there was no controuersie about it but one iudgement of all men which euen from the preaching of the Apostles they receiued in a manner by hand that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his iudge although in spirituall matters he be subiect to the iudgement of the Church For the first witnesse in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperours They thinke saith he that it is God alone in whose only power they are from whom they are second after whom they are first before all Gods and aboue all men and in another place we honor the Emperor so as is both lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second from God and haue obtained what so euer he is from God lesse then God only this he desires himselfe so is he greater then all men while he is lesse then the true God alone Thus much he professeth not in his particular but in the generall person of all christians as the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the whole Church Neither let any thinke to elude this argument because the Emperors at that time were without the Church and therefore not subiect to the Church For the law of Christ depriues no man of his right which the aduersaries themselues confesse and therefore as we shewed before Kings and Emperors by comming to the Church loose nothing of their temporall interest In the second place shall S. Ambrose come foorth who writing of Dauid that heaped murder vpon adultery He was a King saith he he was bound by no lawes because Kings are free from the bands of offences For they are not called to punishment by any lawes being exempte by the power of their gouernment Thirdly B. Gregorie of Towers who speakes to Childerike King of France vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously in these words If any of vâ—â—â— King would transgresse the limits of iustice he may be punished by you but if you shall exceed who shall punish you for we speake to you but if you will you heare and if you will not who shall condemne you but he who hath pronounced that he is iustice it selfe Fourthly S. Gregorie the Great who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers who being Pope himselfe confessed that he was the seruant and subiect of the Emperor and with great ciuility and humility acknowledged that all power was giuen the Emperor from heauen ouer all men as we shewed a little before Fiftly the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen Only Kings saith he as being set ouer the lawes are reserued to the examination of God they are not restrained by the lawes of man From
and we confesse it For if one be more â—orthy then another it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy and is â—â—â—strate and suâ—â—â—â—ted to it for they may â—all out to be comprehended â—â— kinds or orderâ— so â—iuers by nature that neither can depend of other or be hâ—ld by any bond of subiection Therefore we grant that a Prâ—â—ce in the case propâ—â—nded ought to change the â—orm of Câ—uill administâ—at 〈…〉 to â—o it by the church or by the hâ—aâ— thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth which is the Pope but oâ—â—lâ—â—â— Spâ—â—â—tuall punishment the horror whereoâ— to a good man 〈◊〉 greeâ—â—ous then all the pu 〈…〉 by the testiâ—oâ—â—e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporall punishment as is 〈…〉 of Kingdome seeing a 〈…〉 poraltiâ—â— Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a 〈…〉 Hence â—â—dorus whose opinion is registred amongst the Canons Whether the peace and diâ—cipline of the Church be increased by faithfull Princes or 〈…〉 of them who hath deliuered and committed the Church to their power CHAP. XV. Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakned by that which hath been said yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse and more at large to explaine my whole meaning touching this point Therefore we must vnderstand that all Kings and Princes christian as they are the children of the Church are subiect to the Ecclesiastike power and that they ought to obey the same so oft as the commandeth spirituall things which vnlesse they shall doe the Church by the power and Iurisdiction which she hath ouer them may inflict spirituall Censures vpon them and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit although she ought not to doe at alwaies as hath been before declared but with that sâ—ord onely not with the visible and temporall sword alâ—â— because 〈◊〉 sword is committed onely to the Ciuil and Secular power Wherefore so oft as the spirituall power standeth in need of the assistance of the temporall sword she is accustomed to intreat the fauour and friendship of the Ciuill power her friend and companion Contrariwise that Ecclesiastike Princes and Prelates are subiect to ciuill Princes in temporalities and ought to obey them in all things which belong to their ciuill gouernment in no other manner then the Ciuill are bound to obey them commanding spirituall things so as they bee such as repugne neither the Catholike faith nor good manners Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason but because that by the bountie of Kings he hath been made a King himselfe I meane a ciuill Prince acknowledging no man for his superiour in temporalties and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Iurisdiction confesse whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer ad precipua capita Apologiae c. That opinion saith he is generall and most true that all men ought altogether to obey the superiour power But because power is twofold spirituall and temporall Ecclesiastike and Politike of which one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings the Bishops must bee subiect to the Kings in temporall matters and the Kings to the Bishops in spirituall as Gelasius the first in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael And because the Bishop of Rome is not onely a chiefe Prince Ecclesiastike to whom all Christians are subiect by the law of God but is also in his Prouinces a Prince temporall nor acknowledgeth any superiour in temporalties no more than other absolute and soueraigne Princes doe in their kingdomes and iurisdictions hence it commeth to passe that in earth he hath no power ouer him Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection but because he possesseth a temporall principality which is subiect to none Therefore in those matters which belong to the safety of the common wealth and to ciuill society and are not against the diuine ordinance the Cleargie is no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne Prince temporall then other Citizens are as Bellarmine himselfe declareth excellently well adding also a reason secondly for that Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men they are also Citizens and certaine ciuill parts of the common wealth Cleargie men saith he are not any way exempted from the obligation of ciuill lawes which do not repugne the sacred Canons or the clericall dutie And although he saith that he speakes not of coactiue obligation yet is it more true that they may be constrained by a temporall iudge to the obedience of the lawes where the cause doth require that in that case they should not enioy the benefit of their exemption which it is certaine enough that they receiued from the lawes of Emperors and Princes For in vaine doth he challenge the benefit of lawes who offends against them Hence it is I meane out of this society and fellowship of clerkes and laikes in the common weale that in publike assemblies the Cleargie if they be to consult of temporall affaires doe fit in the next place to the Prince Therefore spirituall power by the word of power it is vsuall to signifie the persons indued with power doth both command and obey politike power and the politike her againe And this is that indeed whereof B. Gregorie the Pope admonisheth Maurice the Emperor let not our Lord saith he out of his carthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests but out of his excellent iudgement euen for his sake whose seruants they are let him so rule ouer them as that also he yeeld them due reference That is to say let him rule ouer them so far forth as they are Citizens and parts of the common wealth yeeld reuerence as they are the Priests of God and spirituall fathers to whom the Emperor himselfe as a child of the Church is in subiection And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers is by a singular president declared of Salomon who feared not to pronounce Abiathar the high Priest guilty of death because he had a hand in the treason of Adoniah For the story saith The King also said to Abiathar the Priest Goe thy waies to Auathoth to thy house and surely thou shalt die but to day I will not slay thee because thou hast caried the Arke of the Lord before Dauid my father and hast endured trouble in all those things wherein my father was troubled Therefore Salomon dismissed Abiathar that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Salomon shewes that in a ciuill and temporall businesse he had authority ouer the Priests whereas notwithstanding it is euident that in the old law the Priests were ouer the Kings and vsed to command and also to withstand them in all things
summae de Ecclesia Secondly it may be said and better with Albert Pighius lib. 5. Hierar Ecclesi cap. 7. that there is a difference betweene Heathen and Christian Princes for when the Princes were heathen the Bishop was not their Iudge but cleane contrarie he was subiect to them in all ciuill Causes no lesse then other men for it is plaine that the Bishop was not Iudge of them because he is not a Iudge but of the faithfull 1. Cor. 6. What haue I to doe to iudge of them which are without And that of the contrarie he is ciuilly subiect to them both of right and indeed as it is plaine For the Christian law depriueth no man of his right and dominion Therefore euen as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and to Kings so also after Wherefore Peter and Paul euery where exhort the faithfull to be subiect to Princes as appeareth ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeale to Caesar and acknowledged him his Iudge when hee was accused of the sedition and tumult which was raised amongst the people Thus he whereby it is plaine that not onely want of strength was the reason why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes but also because all law both diuine and humane was against such an action and in the same booke and Chapter he teacheth more openly when hee saith that to iudge punish depose belonged onely to a superiour which is most true and without all controuersie is confirmed by the common iudgement of men And now by these most certaine Principles set downe and granted by him euery one that hath any skill in reasoning may gather that the Christians although they were mightie both in numbers and strength could not by right depose Nero Diocletian and other heathen and wicked Princes and that is concluded by this strong and vnanswerable demonstration Subiects cannot iudge punish or depose a Superiour But all Christians were subiect to Nero Diocletian c. and other Emperours and Heather Kings Ergo they could not depose such Emperours or Kings The proposition is granted by him and likewise the Assumption which doe stand vpon most certaine truth and the conclusion depends of the Antecedents by a necessary consecution and is directly contrary to that which he had said That Christians in times past might lawfully depos Nero Diocletian c But for that they wanted temporall power strength they forbare that purpose Therfore it is false and worthy to be reprehended For aientia negantia simul vera esse nequeunt Heereby also is the falshood of the opinion of S. Thomas euident which we haue refuted aboue in this Chapter CHAP. XXII I Said that Bellarmine vsed a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason which is That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretike King whereof I haue already noted the faults of the first Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what maner of arguments they are and what strength they haue Therefore the second argument is this To tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King labouring to draw men to his sect is to expose religion to manifest danger But Christians are not bound neither indeed ought they to tolerate an infidell King with the manifest danger of Religion for when there is difference and contention between the law of God and the law of Man it is a matter of Gods law to keepe and obserue the true faith and religion which is one onely and not many but it is a point of mans law that we haue this or that King To these things I answer that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these doe not reason rightly nor according to arte but doe propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without forme For for that which he assumes But Christians are not bound yea they ought not without euident danger of religion to tolerate an Infidell King Insteed whereof should haue beene placed in good Logike this Assumption But Christians are not bound yea they ought not to expose religion to euident danger That the Conclusion might follow thereof Ergo It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King For the assumption which he setteth downe is almost iust the same with the Proposition that is in question But to allow him somewhat let vs grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good forme and let vs answer to the force of the argument I say then that his Proposition is false I say againe that it is not true that To tolerate an Heretike or Heathen King endeuouring to draw men to his sect is to expose Religion to manifest danger But it is onely to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretike or Infidell King to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people seeing now the people hath no iust and lawful remedy left them to deliuer Religion but onely Constancy and Patience And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians vnlesse we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians who did without any shrinking or tergiuersation or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius Iuliaenus Valens and other renouncers of Christian religion because they came lawfully to the Empire and whom they might most easily haue remooued or deposed they honoured them with all honour duty and reuerence euen because they were their Emperours and Kings These holy fathers then and worthy Christians in that age did tolerate Heretike and Infidel Kings although if we onely looke at their temporall strength they were furnished with excellent meanes and opportunities to depose them and yet none that is in his wits will euer say that they exposed Religion to most euident danger thorow that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy Now I speake of tolerating that King who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen where Christians doe not rule or who when he was admitted and enstalled into his Gouernment was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King ouer themselues no law nor religion enforceing whom they know to be either an Heretike or an Infidell is indeed to expose Religion to most euident danger and in that behalfe it were a greeuous sinne in the Christians and they that doe it are worthy miserably to perish therefore Now for that which he deduceth out of the opposition betweene diuine and humane law I answer â—reeâ—ly that he is much deceiued in this that in this matter he supposeth there is a crosse encounter and conflict betweene the law of God and the law of man For they are not repugnant To keepe faith and Religion and to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King Neither is the one by diuine law the other by humane as he imagineth But they be two Preceptâ— of Gods law
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
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
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
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
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
thought that that excellent Diuine had not sufficiently inough satisfied his ambition when as notwithstanding hee had giuen him a great deale more then he should haue done Besides all these reasons this is somewhat that the chiefe dutie of a story writer consisteth in reporting not in iudging in which regard many who excelled more in remembrance of things done then in iudgement of them applied their thoughts to the historicall narration and contenting themselues with the paked and simple relation onely of all occurrents did leaue indifferent the equity thereof to all mens censures Therefore although wee owe to those men the true knowledge and faithfull report of matters passed which they in their writings reserued and conuaied to posterity yet we apprehend and receiue the equity and iustice of those actions not from the commendation of the writers but either from the authority of the scriptures or traditions of the Apostles or the ancient decrees of the Church or lastly from the right rule of naturall reason And so here will be the point alwaies to enquire and examine the equity of euery action and to search diligently not what the author of a story hath praised or dispraised but what ought to bee praised or dispraised by good right and desert Therefore I stand not much vpon examples which neither are found and commended in the Scriptures nor are not proued to be worthy commendation by some of those waies at the least which we haue set downe For assuredly it is a very dangerous matter for a man to propound to himselfe examples to imitate being not before weighed in this ballance and by these waights seeing that they that apply themselues to reade monuments of antiquity shall more often light vpon more euill examples then good and vertuous For which cause the Emperour doth grauely admonish all Iudges non exemplis sed legibus esse iudicandum and that in all businesses they ought not to follow that which hath been by great Magistrates before them sed veritatem legum iustitiae vestigia These considerations aduise me not to dwell verie long vpon the prolixe and exquisite discussion and examination of the rest of the Examples produced by Bellarmine vnlesse I shall obserue peraduenture that there is somewhat couched in them whereby the vnwary Reader may be ensnared vnder a pretence and opinion of a truth Therefore for some of them let vs see which and what they be The fift is of Gregory the II. saith he who forbad tribute to be paid by the Italians to the Emperour Leo the Image-breaker being excommunicate by him and by that meanes cut a part of his Empire from him Surely I thinke in this example the truth of the businesse as it passed is not set downe although I know it is so reported by certaine Writers of storie And that which induceth me to thinke so is both the excellent learning of that Pope ioined with a speciall integritie of life and also the testimony of Platina in this matter who amongst all the worthy actions of that Pope reporteth this that by his owne authoritie hee withstood the Italians being willing to fall away from that impious Prince and to chuse another Emperour ouer them For so writeth Platina But then the Emperour Leo the Third when hee could not openly inueigh against the Pope publisheth an Edict that all they who were vnder the Roman Empire should dispatch and carrie cleane away out of the Churches the Statues and Images of all Saints Martyrs and Angels to take away Idolatrie as he said and he that did otherwise he would hold him for a publike enemie or Traitor But Gregorie doth not onely not obey so great impietie but also admonisheth all Catholikes that they would not in any sort commit so great an errour through the feare or Edict of the Prince With which cohortation the people of Italie was so encouraged that they went very neere to chuse another Emperour but Gregorie laboured with all the power he could that it should not be And Platina addeth that this Pope as a most holy man often admonished the Emperour by Letters that he would let goe the errours of some ill disposed persons about him and embrace the true faith at the length and that he would forbeart to destroy the Images of the Saints by whose memorie and example men might be stirred vp to the imitation of vertue I doe giue credit to this Author in this point aboue other more ancient Writers especially strangers the rather for that he by the Commandement of Sixtus Quintus a Pope hath written the Popes liues and that at Rome where he was furnished with many helpes of ancient Monuments to finde out the truth of matters that passed in the Citie and in Italie which others wanting as appeareth did receiue nothing but vncertain reports and scattered rumours of men who many times report that to be done which they would faine haue done for a certaine and cleere truth If Platina had in silence passed ouer the former part of the storie surely hee had confirmed as it were by a secret consent the opinion of these men who haue otherwise written of Gregorie But seeing that hee was not ignorant that they had written so being a man much conuersant in those stories and yet notwithstanding doth with a plaine contradiction impugne their opinion it is very probable that hee had farre better and more assured testimonies in the relation of those things which were done by this Pope Wherefore it seemeth more reasonable and more agreeable to the truth to follow Platina in this matter and to note a lie in the writings of Zonaras seeing it is prooued in experience that they are deceiued many times who from the relation of others doe commit to writing the sayings and doings of people that liued farre from them then to blot the innocent life of an excellent Pope with a filthie spot of iniustice and rebellion For albeit it bee true that according to his spirituall authoritie ouer all hee might worthily excommunicate this Emperour yet he might not prohibit that the people being subiect to the Romane Empire should not giue tribute to Cesar or pay their customes to the Emperour so long as he continued Emperour without the manifest breach of the Law of God and of the Doctrine of the Gospell And it is certaine that this Leo although impious continued Cesar vnto his death not deposed from his Empire either by the people or by the Pope Therefore I say that it is false which the Magdeburgers Centuriators doe write that this Pope who was famous both for Doctrine and life was a Traitour to his Country I say also that it is false which Bellarmine propounds in the former example that the Pope did set a Fine or Mulct vpon Leo Isaurus Iconumachus to a part of his Empire for hee practised no mischiefe as appeareth by this storie of Platina neither against the Country nor against the Prince Now followeth the sixth CHAP. XLI
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