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
depend did heape and lay vpon his only person all the power which is in the vniuersall world with these allurements and inuitations the Popes who of their owne accord ran with speed enough toward honor and greatnesse were now much more enflamed as it were with certaine new firebrands of ambition and aspiring thoughts For all how many soeuer held that sea lawfully gouerned the Church with an authority equall to Peter but not all of them burning with the zeale of Peter gouerned it with equall disposition to him Nay I can not write it without griefe of heart it is certaine that many crept into that place by violence and villany others did breake into it and defiled the most holy Chaire with the filthinesse of their liues and behauiour others also who were aduanced to the height of that dignitie burned with an ambitious desire of ruling and out of their emulation and enuie against secular Kings and Princes endeuoured by all deuise and cunning to enlarge the bounds of their gouernment which in the beginning was meerely spirituall with the encrease of temporall Iurisdiction and authoritie Which affectation although at the first diuers supposed to be a grace and ornament to that great dignitie which the Vicar of Christ in earth and the successor of blessed Peter doth hold yet when some of them grew to that insolencie that they supposed it lawfull for them not onely to throw downe Kings from their Thrones but also to giue away great and goodly kingdomes for reward nay for a pray and to grant them to any that would seaze vpon them then surely there was no reasonable man but hee greatly misliked that vnreasonable pride of minde and either shed teares or conceiued great anger at the same Who was there at that time that did not either mourne inwardly or gnash his teeth in his head when that most proud Pope whom we mentioned before presumed so arrogantly to depriue that most mightie Monarch Philip the Faire of his kingdome and to bestow it together with the Empire vpon Albert Duke of Austria And that for no other reason in the world but because the King had laid his Legate by the heeles for threatning him in so saucie manner as he did as though by that Act the King of France whom a little before Innocent the 3 had ingeniously confessed that he had no superiour in temporall matters he had resigned his kingdome to the Pope as Client and Feudaire to him for so he denoūceth to the King by the Archdeacon of Narbona that the kingdome of Fraence was escheted to the Church of Rome for his Contumacie and violating of the law of Nations which speach of his what doth it else imply but that this kingdome in all mens iudgement the most free and flourishing kingdome of the world and by example and precedent thereof all other Christian kingdomes are as Benefices and Feudes of the Church of Rome and euen of the Pope himselfe seeing they could not otherwise escheate to that Church for Contumacie felonie as they tearme it vnlesse the direct temporall Dominion and fee of those kingdomes were in the same Church The other occasion of affecting so great a temporall Iurisdiction was presented by the sword of Excommunication the principall bulwarke of the spirituall gouernment which was so great terror to the world that the people durst neither neglect nor contemne the Popes curses being armed fortified howsoeuer by right or by wrong with the thunderbolt of Excommunication and this voice did vsually sound out of Pulpits That euery Excommunication although it were vniust was to be feared and that it belonged only to the Pope to iudge whether it were iust or vniust Besides that also that a man ought neither to eat nor to haue any Commerce with Excommunicate persons With which warnings and threatnings the Subiects of Princes excommunicate being for the most part terrified did fall from their Obedience and that which in Euils of this Nature was the worst of all the Pope partly by threatning of the like Curses partly by perswasions and gifts raised other Princes against a Prince that had been excommunicate by him For this cause those Princes vpon whom this malice of the Popes did sit so hard being wrapped in so many dangers on euery side and exposed to such a hazard of their estate made choise rather to pacific an angry Pope with the submission of their Crowne and Scepter and to redeeme their vexations then for their owne particular to embroyle all the world and to set all a fire with sedition and armes This short and compendious way had Popes to exanimate and daunt Kings and Princes with feare and almost to obtaine a victorie without striking stroke Notwithstanding many Princes of good resolution withstood such attempts and proffers of Popes and that so stiffely that the mischiefe which followed thereon turned rather to the Popes hinderance then the Prince But in this place the Reader may please to be aduertised that this Opinion which was so rife in euery mans mouth That euery Excommunication is to be feared ought to be vnderstood with this exception without that it manifestly appeare that it is vniust for then it is neither to be regarded nor feared so as the partie excommunicate be free from contempt and presumption for then it workes backwards and hurts not him against whom it is cast but him from whom it is cast Of which sort that Excommunication seemeth to be which is charged vpon Subiects because they obey their King or Prince being excommunicate in those things which belong to temporall Iurisdiction and doe not repugne the Commandements of God as shall hereafter be declared in a more conuenient place Besides neither is that alwaies true That we ought not to haue commerce or eat meate with Excommunicate persons for in this case it is not true where the danger is apparant least by such a separation some great mischiefe arise in the Church as vsually it doth when a Prince is excommunicate if his Subiects forbeare to communicate with him for there is neuer any Prince so much forlorne who cannot finde friends and clients by whose aide and armes hee may maintaine his cause although it be neuer so vniust with great hurt both to Church and common-weale whereof both in the memorie of our Forefathers and in our owne age there haue beene lamentable examples in Christian countries where I say any such thing is feared a separation of bodies is not necessarie But it is enough to be seuered from such in heart to be distinguished by life and manners for the preseruation of Peace and Unitie which is to bee preserued for the health of those which are weake as S. Austine excellently teacheth whereby it seemeth to follow that the Pope doth very vnaduisedly who forbids the Subiects communion and societie with their Prince so oft as no small both diuision and confusion hangeth ouer Church and Common-wealth yea that in such a Case
premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules and none 〈…〉 of has iudgement as hath beene said And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 thâ—â— kingdomes which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christiaâ— Kings and Princes should stand 〈…〉 that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all tempâ—â—alitiâ—s of Christians who shall meaâ—â— tâ—at 〈…〉 owne pleasure and iudgement that 〈…〉 for him if he be displeased then to 〈…〉 his indirect power so oâ—t 〈…〉 priuate 〈◊〉 oâ— the ambiâ—◠〈…〉 forward or euen 〈…〉 and contemned 〈…〉 Where of â—â—â—face 〈…〉 haue giuen 〈…〉 all of iâ—any they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the poâ—tifiâ—◠〈…〉 and 〈…〉 one after another as 〈…〉 I omit this reason taken 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—ought it 〈…〉 for that 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 kingdoms but an execution 〈…〉 to thâ—m by the Pope â—â—t iâ— it strange against the 〈…〉 and all the abâ—ttoâ— of the indirect power 〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction is 〈…〉 by the law of God oâ— of Man and also he 〈…〉 oâ— holdeth any thâ—ng iâ— he hold by neiâ—â—â—â— of these holdeth wrongfullâ— as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Dâ—â—atists Therefore it cannot be that the Pope should iustly exercise any temporall iurisdiction ouer secular Kings and Princes vnlesse it be certaine that the same is giuen him either by the law of God or of Man But neither in diuine nor humane lawes is any such place found which confers any such power vpon him whereas on the contrary part the domination and authority of kings is openly commended and allowed by many testimonies of sacred Scriptures as when it is said By mee Kings raigne All power is giuen to you The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them The heart of the King is in the hand of God I will giue them a King in mine anger My sonne feare the Lord and the King Feare God honour the King and euery where the like speeches Lastly seeing this temporall power and Iurisdiction of the Pope whereof we speake is not found to be comprised neither in the expresse word of God in the Scriptures nor by the tradition of the Apostles receiued as it were by hand nor practised by vse and custome in the Church for these thousand yeeres and more or exercised by any Pope nor allowed and commended nay not so much as mentioned by the ancient Fathers in the Church I pray you what necessitie of faith should force vs to admit it or with what authoritie can they perswade the same vnto vs Our opinion say they is prooued by reasons and examples how glad say I would I be that that were true But wee ought chiefely to know this that onely those reasons are fit to prooue this opinion of theirs whereof euident proofes and demonstrations are made which none of them hath hitherto brought nor as I thinke could bring For as touching reasons onely probable and likely whereof Dialectike syllogismes doe consist their force is not such as can conclude and giue away from Kings and Princes their soueraigne authoritie from them seeing that euen in daily brables about trifling matters nothing can be concluded vnlesse the Cause of the Suiter bee prooued by manifest and euident proofes and witnesses and therefore the Actor not proouing he that is conuented although himselfe performe nothing shall carie the businesse But the helpe is very weake and feeble in Examples because they onely shew what was done not what ought to be done those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimonie of the Scriptures which seeing they are thus let vs now see with what reasons the Aduersaries continue their opinion CHAP. XIII THere is not one amongst them all who are of the Popes partie as I said before who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharpely or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉 than the worthy Diuine Bellarmine whom I mention for honors sake who although he gaue as much to the Popes authoritie in temporalities as honestly hee might and more then he ought yet could hee not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist Who affirmed that hee had supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the whole earth and all Peoples Countries and Nations committed vnto him not by humane but by diuine ordinance And therefore he was very neere by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to haue abolished all the writings of that Doctor which do oppugne heresie with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report to me Which matter comforts me if peraduenture that which I would not any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholikes to read my bookes Let him doe what he will but he shall neuer bring to passe that I euer forsake the Catholike Apostolike and Romish faith wherein I haue liued from a Child to this great age or dye in another profession of faith then which was prescribed by Pius the 4. We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are fiue in number leauing others especially Bozius his fancies which are vnworthy that a man of learning should trouble himselfe to refute The first reason is which Bellarmine propounds in these wordes The ciuill power is subiect to the spirituall power when each of them is a part of the Christian common-wealth therefore a spirituall Prince may command ouer temporall Princes and dispose of temporall matters in order to a spirituall good for euery superiour may command his inferiour And least any peraduenture elude this reason by denying the Proposition with the next he labours to strengthen the same by three reasons or Media as they call them Now that ciuill power not onely as Christian but also as Ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiastike as it is such first it is prâ—â—ued by the ends of them both for the temporall end is subordinate to the spirituall end as it appeares because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore ought to be referred to the felicitie eternall Now it is plaine out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate as the ends are subordinate Secondly Kings and Bishops Cleargie and Laitie doe not make two common wealthes but one that is one Church for we are all one bodie Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth 12. But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one of another but it is no right assertion that spirituall things depend on temporall therefore temporall things depend of spirituall and are subiect to them Thirdly if a temporall administration hinder a spirituall good in all mens iudgement the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment yea euen with the losse of a temporall good therefore it is a signe
Emperour although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith yet was ordained of God and was inferour to God alone Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection not because they could not but because they lawfully might not Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only and the lesse could not depose the greater how could the Christian subiects depose him What doth either the Apostle fight with himselfe or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another Or euen those ancient fathers who succeeded the Apostles were they ignorant of their whole â—â—gâ—t and â—â—â—ledge against Iâ—nded or Heretâ—kâ— Kings and Mâ—gâ—â—traâ—â—â— For that they had force and strength equall 〈◊〉 and more then fuilâ—â—t to eâ—ecute an exploâ—t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very largely Thereâ—ore it is â—â—â—dent by these that the authoritie of the Apostle Paâ—â— doth nothing appâ—â—taâ—â— to the former proposition of Bellarâ—â—â—e touching the deposing of Kings and therefore that hee committed a great error that in a matter so serious and of so great moment hee hath deâ—â—ded the Reader with a false shadoâ— of the Apostle authoritie If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apoâ—â—lâ—â— direction had taken aâ—aâ— the authoritie poâ—er and â—â—nstâ—â—tion of the msidell Iudges or in aâ—â— paâ—â—hadal â—â—gaâ—â—d the same or had exempted Christians from their subieâ—â—â—n there could nothing haue been stronger thâ—â— â—â—â—â—unes argument nothing more trâ—â—â— thâ—n â—â—s opâ—â—â— But because that constitution of Iudgeâ— dâ—â— no more prâ—iâ—dice â—eathâ—â— Iâ—â—â—â—diction theâ— the châ—sing of Peâ—â—e Kings at â—â—â—uetide or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the â—antoâ— youth in the 〈…〉 is prâ—iudâ—câ—all to the true Kings and Magistrateâ— it iâ— certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be draâ—â—â— from thence But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question I must adâ—â—â—â—tise you that S. Thomas is in some places of that opinion that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethnâ—ke Princes may iustly be taken away by the â—â—â—tence or ordination of the Church hauing the authoritie of God as he saith S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me but not so great as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canonâ—call Scripture or that it should ouercome either reason or law Whose ghost I honour and admire his doctrine But yet there is no reason why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie for his opinion and also because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie And the reason which he brings because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull who are translated into the sonnes of God An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man as though if any man deserue to be depriued of oâ—ce benefice dignitie authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth may therefore presently be spoiled by another rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same or by another that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him Who knoweth not that the Chancellor Constable and other officers made by the King doe deserue to loose their place if in any thing they abuse their office but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them so long aâ— the Prince on whom onely they doe depend â—uâ—ereth them to execute their once In like manner infidell Princes although by the desert of 〈◊〉 â—â—fidelitie they deserue to 〈◊〉 their authoritie yet because they are constituted by God and are inferiour to him alone they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie and deposed but by God himselfe And indeed the same Thomas in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul aboue recited in this Chapter sheweth plainly enough that the Church hath not that authoritie whereby shee may depose â—thinkes for he saith it is against the law of God to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes Now it is sure that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God further to take from infidell Princes the right of Lordship and Dignitie is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement Therefore the Church hath not that power And let any man who will peruse all Stories he shall finde no where that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie to iudge Princes infidell or heathen Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall as Thomas thinketh in that place but for want of rightfull power because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull according to that of the Apostle What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without and also because Princes appointed by God haue God onely Iudge ouer them by whom only they may be deposed Neither is it to the matter that Paul when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels addeth that only Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed for he said not that as though for that cause onely seruants should obey their Masters but that especially for that cause they should doe it and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe which could arise thereof that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters to wit the publike scandall of the whole Church of God and of Christian doctrine Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will if they might doe it without scandall to the Church for they should not commit flat theft in their owne persons by the law of Nations But he would shew that they did not onely sinne which in other places he plainly teacheth but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault and aboue all things to be auoided Therefore now it remaineth that according to my promise I make proofe that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes is false euen out of the Prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 and granted by himselfe The matter is plaine and easie to be done for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes in all Ciuill causes as other men his words are these I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because indeed hee was his Iudge although not of right for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere lib. 2. cap. 96.
Propositions and therefore if we grant them it cannot bee denied Therefore all this is true and wee grant it all but yet that which hee annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion is neither agreeable nor consequent which is that the Pastor may enioine the people c. For to be able or not to be able posse where the right and equity is disputed ought to bee vnderstoode not of the mere act but of the power which is lawfully permitted and which agreeth with law and reason So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that which hee is able to doe iustly and honestly And so the matter is brought about as we are enforced to enquire whether the Pope by the plenitude of his Apostolicke power as they speake can command enioine subiects that they dare not be so bold as to obey the edicts commandements lawes of their Prince vnder paine of excommunication And if he shall de facto commaund the law whether the Subiects are bound to obey any such commandement of the Pope Surely as I touched in the beginning for the Affirmatiue I could neuer in my life either my selfe find a waighty argument nor light vpon any inuented by an other But the contrary proposition is strongly maintained being built vpon the foundation which we spake of ere while viz. That the Pope cannot in any sort dispense against a law of nature and of God Vpon which ground is raised a most firme argument in my opinion which is concluded in this forme The Pope can commaund or dispense in nothing against the law Naturall and Diuine But to commaund or dispense in the matter of subiection and obedience due to Princes is against law naturall and Diuine Ergo The Pope cannot commaund or dispense in the same and by consequence cannot commaund the subiects that they doe not obey their temporall Prince in that wherein the Prince is superiour to him and if he shall de facto commaund it shall be lawfull for the subiects to disobey him with safety and good conscience as one that presumes to giue lawes without the compasse of his territory or iurisdiction Both the Propositions are most certaine Out of which the Conclusion is induced by a necessary consecution He that shall weaken the force of this Argument shall doe mee a very great pleasure and make me beholding to him For my part that I may ingenuously confesse my slender wit I doe not see in the world how it can bee checked by any sound reason for though it may bee said that obedience due to a superiour may bee restrained and hindered by him who is superiour to that superiour and that the Pope who is Father of all Christians is superiour to all Kings and Princes Christian in this that he is Father and therefore that hee may of his owne authority inhibite and restraine that the subiects doe not performe the reuerence and obedience due and promised to the Prince yet this reason is like a painted ordinance not able to beat down the strength of the former conclusion Seeing this which is said that obedience du to a superiour may be diminished or restrained or taken away by his commaundement who is superiour to that superiour this is true onely then when he who forbiddeth it is superiour in the same kind and line of power and superiority or in those things wherein obedience is due As for example the King may take frō the Lieutenant of his Armie his commaund and giue charge that the Armie obey him no more and the Lieutenant may vpon cause commaund that the souldier obey not the Tribune nor the Tribune the Centurion nor the Centurion the Decurion For that all these in the same kind I meane about militarie gouernment discipline but one aboue an other are superiour according to the order of dignity The same is true in the orders of the heauenly warfare and of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchie But the obedience of the subiects towards the Prince whereof wee speake consisteth in temporall matters wherein the Popes themselues confesse that there is none aboue the Prince But if none bee aboue him in temporalities surely it followeth that there is none that may forbid or hinder the subiection and obedience which is due to him from his subiects in temporalities I haue shewed aboue that these powers the spirituall and temporall are so distinct that neither as it is such doth commaund or serue the other And that they are not to be regarded who flie to their starting holes of distinctions and quirkes or rather those snares of verball captions by these words directè indirectè For it is most sure that hee hath a superiour in temporalties whome an other may in any sort commaund a-about temporall matters or who in temporall causes may bee iudged directly or indirectly by an other For iudgement is giuen of one against his will And no man is iudged but of his superiour Because an equall hath no commaund ouer an equall And indeed for the effect and issue of the matter there is no difference at all whether one haue authority and power ouer an other directly or indirectly For in those wordes directè indirectè or if you please directly and obliquely the difference is propounded to vs onely in the maner and way or order of obtaining and comming by the former but not in the liberty force and effect of exercising and executing the same But good God what can bee said more vnreasonably or more contrary to the selfe then this that a King hath no superiour in temporalties but is free from all bands of offences nor is brought to punishment by any lawes which all antiquitie and the whole Church hath euer held and againe that the Pope vpon cause or in some manner that is to say Indirectly is superiour to the King in temporalties and may punish him with temporall punishments that is with losse of kingdom rule yea life also For after that he is once defected thrown down from his throne by the Pope and reduced to the condition of a priuate man what remaineth but that he should vndergoe the last issue of this malice and that is either to prouide for his safety by speedy flight and so liue a miserable life out of his Countrey or if hee doe not in this manner prouide for himselfe bee will forthwith bee arraigned and conuinced in publike iudgment and then fall into the hands of a Gaoler or an Executioner and so there will be an end of him Now there is in this power which these good fellowes doe attribute indirectly to the Pope a soueraigne free and vncontrolled libertie to oppresse and to exercise tyrannie euen ouer good and innocent Kings For first of all they ordaine That it belongeth to the Pope to iudge if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed Secondly that there is no appeale from his iudgement Because he alone iudgeth all
first of all the Popes that euer aduentured this high course wee haue sufficiently declared before But who is ignorant how that same furious aggression and censure of Boniface the VIII vpon Philip the Faire how little it profited nay how much it hurt the Church Likewise that of Iulius the II. against Lewes the XII both Kings of France of Clement the VII and Paulus the III. against Henrie the VIII and of Pius Quintus against Elizabeth Kings of England Did not all these Princes not onely not acknowledge but also contemne and laugh to scorne that same papall imperiousnesse carried beyond the bounds of a spirituall iurisdiction as meere arrogation and an vsurped domination For the two last Popes I dare bee bold to affirme vpon a cleere ground for the matter is knowne to all the world that they were the cause that Religion was lost in England for that they tooke vpon them to vsurpe and practise so odious and so large a iurisdiction ouer the Prince and people of that kingdome Therefore how much more iustly and wisely did Clement the VIII who chose rather by a spirituall and fatherly charitie and a vertue agreeable to his name to erect and establish the state of the French Kingdome which began to stagger and sway in religion then to contend by this same haughty and threatning authority of a temporall iurisdiction because hee knew that seldome or neuer it had happie issue Out of doubt for Kings and Princes who glory not without cause that they are beholding onely to God the Sword for their Kingdomes and principalities it is proper to them of a naturall greatnes of mind to desire rather to die with honour then to submit their scepters to an others authority and to acknowledge any iudge superiour in temporall matters And for that cause it seemeth not to be good for the Church and Christian common-wealth that the Pope should be inuested in so great an authority ouer secular Princes by reason of the manifold slaughters miseries and lamentable changes of Religion and of all things besides which dospring from thence In which consideration I cannot but wonder at the weake iudgement of some men who take themselues to be very wise who to remoue from the Pope the enuie of so hatefull a power and to mitigate allay the indignation of Kinges whome it offen deth so much are not afraide to giue out and to publish in bookes scattered abroad that this temporall prerogatiue of the Pope ouer Kings is passing profitable euen for the Kings thēselus because as they say mē somtimes are kept in compasse more through the feare of loosing temporall then of spirituall estates An excellent reason surely and worthy of them who put no difference betweene Princes and priuate persons and measure all with one foot Surely these men reach so farre in vnderstanding that they vnderstand nothing at all As though that feare wich falles vpon priuate persons is wont to possesse also the minds of Princes who hold themselues sufficiently protected and armed with the onely authority of their gouernment against all power and strength and impression of any man That reason ought onely to be referred to them whom the terrour of temporall authority and the seuerity of ordinary iurisdiction do reclaime from offending with feare of punishment for these kind of people because they are sure that if they offend they shall be chastised with some pecuniarie or corporall mult doe for the most part abstaine from doing hurt not for conscience but for the displeasure and feare of the losse of temporall thinges But Kings haue not the same reason but being placed on high aboue all humane constitutions and all positiue lawes doe giue vnto God onely the account of their administration whose punishment the longer it is in cōming the more seuere it is like to bee Against priuate persons the execution of punishment is ready which they cannot auoid without the mercy of the Prince But what execution can bee done against Princes seeing they are not tied by any sanctions of humane lawes nullisque ad poenam vocentur legibus tuti imperij poteslate For that it is expressed in the law That the Prince is free from the laws that both the Latine and the Greeke Interpreters do vnderstand as of all lawes so especially of poenall that the Prince although he doe offend may not be chastised by them or as the Graecians doe speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is the cause that Kings being assured both the greatnesse of their authority and confidence of their Armes feare not the losse of any temporall estate seeing there is not one among a thousād of them so froward and friendlesse but that he can find many friends to follow his party by whose helpe and aduice whether he be to vse sleight or strength hee supposeth he can maintaine his Crowne and scepter And for this very reason it is so farre that they will be terrified with these imperious and lording minitations to take their Kingdomes away that they are rather inflamed and set on fire by them against all pietie and religion And it is verie certaine that this temporall power which the Pope some ages past doth challenge ouer all men is so hatefull to princes that euen they who doe much honour the seate of Peter and do acknowledge the great power of his successors in spirituall causes yet they cannot without indignation endure to heare the speech of this temporall domination The reason is because neither in the sacred scriptures nor traditions of Apostles or any writings of ancient fathers there appeareth any testimony nay no token or print of footing of any such authority of the Pope and that a matter of so great weight I meane so great a commaund and power of raigning should bee euicted or wrested from them without the manifest word of God or pregnant proofe of reason neither can they endure any reason of law or indifferencie of equity can admit Wherfore wise men haue euer been of this mind that the Popes should with much more case procure the peace of the Church if according to the custome of their ancesters they would quietly rest themselues within the bounds and compasse of the spirituall iurisdiction and that according to their Apostolicke charity they should humblie entreat wicked Kings requesting beseeching protesting with praiers and teares that they would returne into the way rather then that they should goe about through this hatefull intermination to strip them of their temporall authority as it were through force and feare wherby they profit nothing or little to extort and wrest from them amendement of maners and faith And if these Princes bee so obstinate and stiffe in their wicked courses that they can be moued with no teares nor bended with no praiers the assistance of God must be implored and they abandoned to his iudgement But now let vs goe forward CHAP. XXXII THe second argument which Bellarmine deducteth out of his fift
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
are forbidden to 〈◊〉 one that is no christian Grant all this be true Then 〈◊〉 these parts thus granted he proceeds in this 〈◊〉 Againe It is equally dangerous and hurtfull to chuse one that is not a Christian not to depose a non Christian as it is known Ergo Christians are bound not to suffer euer them a King not Christian if he endeuour to turne the people from the â—auâ— I answer that this consequence is not good and that by such vitious and deceitfull manner of arguing many are turned from the truth Now the fallacy is in this that he determines and assumes for certaine that there is law wheresoeuer the same hurt or danger is which I shall prooue presently to be most false Neither is it like that which the 〈◊〉 deliuer vâ—â—â—adem ratio est â—us idem esse 〈◊〉 Therefore we must obserue that he doth not saâ—e 〈◊〉 dempâ—â—â—att esse eligere non Christianum non deponere non Christianum that it is as faulty or vnlawfull c. which if he had said I had denied the antecedent but he saith 〈…〉 esse that it is as hurtful and dangerous c. whence he doth falsly gather that Christians are â—ound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian. For it followeth not where the same harme and danger is that the same power to doe any thing is granted to the party who is 〈◊〉 or endangered nor where equall harme and danger is there also is equall sinne or merit and this may be easily prooued by examples He that re 〈◊〉 ounds or is spoiled of his goods suffers the same danger and mischeefe whether it be by force from a robber or a wandring souldier or that he be oppressed of a Magistrate by an vniust sentence But the same remedy is not prouided against both these to run vpon a robber and to kill him in defense of himselfe and his goods it is very lawfull reseruing as they say the moderation of the defensiue resistance that it be without blame But it is not likewise lawfull to resist a Magistrate who according to the power of his iurisdiction had passed an vniust sentence against him by reason of the authority which iudgements and matters iudged vse to haue Marke I pray you although in both respects there be the like harme and losse to him that is spoiled yet the same law is not of force in both places Againe it is a matter of the same danger and hurt deliberately to enter into a ship whose keeâ—e you know to be â—â—aken and hath sprung a leake and to enter into that which you take to be sound when as indeed she is rotten and full of leakes I say it is a matter equally dangerous not equally vnlawfull In the first case you tempt God and procure to your selfe your owne death but in the later it 〈◊〉 haue vsed all possible diligence you doe not offend it ignorantly you commit your selfe to such a ship So it is a matter of the same danger and hurt to mary a woman for her wealth or beauty which you know to be â—â— an vnquiet and a 〈◊〉 disposition and by chance to light vpon one which you doe not know to be such a one And yet he that casts himself into so manifest a danger seemeth greatly to offend who in the shaping of the course of his life doth tempt God But he that being ignorant of his to tune and of the moroâ—â—ty and sharpnesse of the woman shall mary her not only committeth nothing against God but by his daily troubles and miseries if he beare them with a strong and patient minde doth please him as it were by a certaine kind of martirdome I â—ight produce many examples of this kind to conuince the captiousnesse of this argument of Bellarmines Therefore as it followeth not if he that knowes a woman to be extreamly wicked and so froward that there is no hope to huâ— with her in peace and quietnesse ought not to take her to wife because by that act he doth cast himselfe into 〈◊〉 danger that he also who casually and vnwittingly haâ—h light of such a one ought to forsake or refuse her notwithstanding the bond of matrimony although it be a matter of the same danger and hurt if he keepe her In like manner it followeth not if Christians be bound not to chuse a King who is no Christian or an heretike that they are â—ound also not to endure him being now chosen because many things hinder a businesse which is to be done which doe not dissolue the same being done as we haue other where shewed at large And this is sufficient to weaken the force of this argument CHAP. XXI BVt yet I am constrayned to stay heere a little longer that I may further discouer and represse another errour which he adioynes as a Complement to his former reason for to confirme that which he said That Christians are bound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian c. And because he would haue none to doubt of this proposition because in times past Christians did both tolerat and honour many Princes euen because they were Princes without any scruple of conscience which were partly Heathen partly Heretikes that I say he might preuent with some solution this so strong an obiection and so peremptory against his former positioÌ„ he presently adioyneth these words Now if Christians in times past did not depose Nero and Dioclâ—tianus and Iulianus the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because the Christians wanted temporall strongth For that otherwise they might iustly haue done it appeareth by the Apostle 1. Cor. 6. where hee commands that new Iudges in Temporall causes should be set ouer the Christians least the Christians should be enforced to bring their causes and debate them before a Iudge that was a persecutor of Christ. For as new Iudges might be appointed so also might new Princes and Kings haue beene for the same cause if they had had strength sufficient for such an enterprise Heere be many things worthy to be reprehended and which I doe much maruell that a man so learned and trained in authors both sacred and prophane would euer commit to writing For first he saith that the want of strength was the cause why Christians in times past did not depose Nero Dâ—â—cleâ—ian Iulian Ualens and the like we haue sufficiently declared to be most false by cleere and vndoubted testimonies in our bookes Deregno and also aboue in this booke and will foorth with demonstrate euen out of the Principles laid and granted by himselfe Secondly there is nothing moreâ—oâ—d nor more vnreasonable yeâ— that I may speake it without offence of so great a man nothing more 〈…〉 to alledge the authority of S. Paul for to giue grace and creâ—â—t to 〈…〉 proposition in whose writing there is not so 〈…〉 one word which without 〈…〉 â—â—construction and â—auâ—â—l can be applied 〈…〉 they
say or by â—gâ—â—e and by interpretation to 〈…〉 of such a position And indeed that I 〈◊〉 speake freely they doe with two much liberty of interpretation abuse S. Paulâ— doctrine who out of that first 〈…〉 to the Corinthians doe collect that it was 〈…〉 Christians to depose Ethinke or Heretike Prin 〈…〉 other in their places Indeed the Apo 〈…〉 in that place rebuke the Christians to that they 〈◊〉 one another with sutes had no iudgment among them at all And also for that they drew one another to the Benâ—â—es oâ— Ethnike and infidell Iudges to whom euery Christian name was hatefull And yet he did this not that he â—ould teach them or signifie to them by this 〈◊〉 that Ethnike Magistrates had no iurisdiction oâ—â—â— Christianâ— or that the Christians might by any de 〈◊〉 bring to passe that Ethnikes should carry no politike doâ—◠〈…〉 them But that he might shew that it was a 〈…〉 the religion and profession of a Christian that they who were newly regenerate in Christ and were called into his fellowship had â—ather to maintaine Law 〈◊〉 and questions before Infidell Iudges then to pacific and compose their businesse and controuersies begun amongst them by the iudgement and arbitration of the Brethren which is of the Christians Therefore the Apostle doth not by this speech disanull the authoritie of the Heathen neither signifieth that the Christians may make defection from them but onely misliketh and reprooueth the peeuishnesse and stiffenesse of certaine Christians that whereas they had brethren that is men of the same religion with them who being by common coâ—â—ent appointed Aâ—bitratouâ—s might with a louing and friendly affection iustly and wisely disâ—eptate and order their causes within their domestike and priuate walles not being contented â—ith these would contentiously appeale to the great sâ—andall of religion to such Iudges as were both without saith and iustice Whencâ— S. Thâ—â—as vpon that place saith But it seemeth to bee otherwise which â—s said 1. Pâ—t 1. â—e yeâ— sâ—biect to euery humane Creature for God either to the Kiâ—g as the souâ—raigne or Lâ—â—utenantâ—â—â—â—t as it were from him for it appertaines to the aâ—tâ—oritie of tâ—â— Prince to iuâ—ge of his subiects Therefore it iâ— against the 〈◊〉 of God to fâ—râ—id that his iuâ—gâ—ment should be 〈…〉 Iâ—fideâ—l But we must say that the Apoâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 but that the 〈…〉 being â—laced vnder â—â—fidell Prâ—â—ces may make their appâ—â—rance before them if theâ— be unâ—mâ—ned â—â—r this were agaiâ—st the suâ—iâ—ction which iâ— due to Priâ—câ—s but â—e forâ—â—â—â— thâ—m that they should not be 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ard to runne to the iudgement â—eates of Infidels Vpon the selfe same place Theâ—deret Hierâ—me do almost write the selfe same things The Apostle saith he doth not heere forbid the â—aitâ—â—ull liuing vnder vnâ—aithfull Princes to appeare before thâ—m when they are summâ—ned for this were against the â—ubiection which is due to Princes but forbids their â—astie and voluntarie running to infidell Iudges in those busineâ—◠〈◊〉 which may be determined by the faithfull Therefore the Apostle in that place commands nothing which may either take away or diâ—inish the iurisdiction and authoritie of infidell Iudges ouer Christians or any way giue preiudice to the same â—ea he could not iustly command any thing against that subiection since it is of the law of Nature being confirmed by God his authoritie as by S. Ambroâ—e his witnesse the Apostle himselfe teacheth other where Therefore this constitution of Iudges whereof we speake did by no meanes exempt Christians from the subiection and iurisdiction of Ethnike Magistrates but onely tooke from them the necessitie of appealing to them when as they should haue Iudges constituted by common consent among themselues by whose arbitrations the questions that rise among them might be composed Now indeed these Iudges were no better then Vmpires without authoritie without power to draw any person before them exercising onely a voluntarie iurisdiction and therefore if either a crosse and ouertiâ—â— aâ—t Christian or any I thinke had called a Christian before an 〈◊〉 fidell Iudge this authoritie of these Christian Iudges had nothing auailed him that was thus called but that he must needs present himselfe before the heathen beâ—â—h nay he were in conscience bound to present himselfe by reason of the subiection which we owe our superiours by the law of Nature Moreouer if a man doe looke more wishly on that place of the Apostle he that of serue that in that place the Apostle takes paines to instruct their Christian mindes to Fuangelicall perfection which is a matter rather of counsell then of precept seeing he exhorts them that they would rather take wrong and suffer losse then so to â—â—nuase suâ—es among themselues According to that of our Sauiour If any man shall strike the one the right cheeke hold him thy other and he that will goe to law with thee and take away thy coate let him haue thy clâ—ake also And so the Fathers of the Church Ambrose Primastus Theodoret and all the rest vnderstood that place for that he saith Now surely there is altogether a fault amongst you that you haue iudgements amongst you why do you not rather suffer losse That vnlesse it be vnderstood of the preseruation of life or of the most perfect state of life cannot possibly be admitted seeing it is a plaine â—ase amongst all men that they doe not offend who being oppressed with iniuries and contumelies desire to be releeued and succoured by the Iudge Therefore S. Paul in that place doth like a good father of many children who worthily rebukes his children that fall out among themselues both for that by dissentions and iarrings they violate brotherly loue as also for that they had not beene more willing to end and determine the controuersie which did arise among them rather by the aduise of the brethren then wrap them in the noise and tumults of Iudiciall courtes and decide them by the verdict of strangers Seeing these thing are thus good God what a miserable blindnesse and ignorance is this or indeed a wilful craft and cunning to seeke to gather out of those words of Paul that it had beene lawfull for the Christians to depose all I thinke Emperours or Magistrates if they had had strength and power to effect the same Seeing especially that the Apostle doth other where command all Christians of necessity to be subiect to those Ethnike powers non solum propterâ—â—am least if they should practise defection they should suffer punishment from these Magistrates whose displeasure the had incurred sed etiam propter conscientiam for because they could not with a sound and safe conscience withdraw themselues from their obedience and subiection which is the ordinance of God or resist and withstand the same For this is of necessity to be subiect for conscience sake or propter Deum for God as S. Peter commandeth Moreouer the first Christians after the Apostles did ingenuously confesse that the
beginning that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subiection is giuen As also because by the vow of religiont he obligation is taken only to God and the Church whereof the Pope is the Vicar or deputed head and therefore if the Pope to whom the free procuration and dispensation of all the buisnesses of the Church is permitted shall as it were in a fashion of renewing a bond transfuse and change the obligation taken to the Church into another Obligation and also doe interpret and consture that by the promise of a great good or performance there is satisfaction made to the Lord God who is the principall creditor in that businesse peraduenture it will not be very absurd to say that there may by chance prooue a liberation and freedome from the knot of the former vow and promise vnlesse some may thinke that it cannot be for this cause because the transgression of a lawfull vow is simply and of his owne nature sinfull and that which is sinfull may not be allowed to be donne to obtaine any good although it be very great But the solution of that obiection is very easie But the matter 〈◊〉 farre otherwise in the case of an Oath which men in their bargaines and couenants are wont to take to confirme and ratifie another Obligation thereby Seeing such a manner of oath is a certaine increase of that obligation to which it is added for securitie in such manner as suertiesâ—ip or assurance of any Pledge or Moregage is vsually taken And therefore although the oath be said to be made to God yet in this case the obligation doth accrew not to God principally but to the person to whom the oath is sworne quia per iuramentum â—urans non intendebat placere Deo sed satisfacere proximo Whereby it commeth to passe that he to whom the Oath is taken hath much more interest by that Oath and obtaineth much more power either to retaine it or to remit it then is granted to the Church in a vow for the Church or Pope euen as they confesse who submit all things to his pleasure cannot without great and iust cause dispense with the solemne vow of Religion But he to whom an other hath by oath bound his faith in the matter of giuing or doing may both alone and without cause of his meere pleasure wholy free the Promiser from the Religion of his Oath and 〈◊〉 it to him whatsoeuer it bee of himselfe so as his onely leaue and good will obtained neither is there any more need of the Popes absolution neither if he shall not performe that which he promised may he be reputed guiltie of periurie before God Therefore it is in a man in this Case who can at his pleasure either retaine one that is bound or dismisse him free which because they are so by the consent of all men how can it be that the Pope may take from the Creditor against his will an Obligation taken to him by the best law that may be I meane by the Law naturall diuine and humane by an oath euery manner of way lawfull which was added to the lawfull contract seing in this kind as in the former there is no place left to Construction by which it may be presumed that he is satisfied to whom principally the oath was made viz. No Creditor speaking a word against nor shewing the contrarie seeing presumption yeeldeth to the truth But let it be that he may vpon cause take it away and free the Promiser from the bond of his Oath because I wil not striue longer with the Canonists about this matter let him then take it away and what then force after thinke you will seeme in this our businesse you will say that the people will be free from the commandement and subiection of the Prince a soone as they are loosed from the bond of their oath Thinke you so indeed what doe you not see that this Oath is but an Accessarie onely to ratifie and assure the Obligation whereby loyaltie and obedience was promised to the Prince doe you not know that Accessaries are taken away and discharged with auoiding of the principall Obligation for although the principall being cancelled the Accessarie falles yet by the taking away of the Accessaries the Principall is not destroied Therefore the Obligation remaineth yet to which this Oath was added which because it consists vpon naturall and diuine Law doth no lesse straitly hold the mindes and consciences of men before God then if it were supported with an Oath quia Dominus inter iur amentum loquelam nostram nullam vult esse distantiam as much as concernes keeping faith of the promise Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more by reason of the contempt of God and notwithstanding that in the externall Court Periurie is more grieuously punished by reason of the solemnitie of the promise then the faith neglected of a mans single promise and bare word as we say But if the Pope would also cancell this Obligation de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine and deliuer and discharge the Subiects from the Oath of the King and enioyne them that they should not dare to obey his requests commandements and lawes vnder paine of Excommunication Shall not the expresse commandement of God seeme to contraueene this warrant of the Pope I meane the commandement of the honoring of Kings with all obedience Is it not lawfull in such a businesse and in a cause the greatest almost that may be to doe that which the Popes interpreters are accustomed to doe in Controuersies of lesse moment And that is to make diligent and carefull inquisition into this same plenitudinem Potestatis whether it extend it selfe so farre as that by it should expresly be forbidden which God doth expresly command or that which God directly forbids to be done the same may lawfully be commanded by it God commandes mee by Salomon to feare the King by his Apostles to honour the King to be subiect and obedient to him This surely is a commandement both of naturall and diuine Law that the inferiour should obey the superiour as long as hee forbiddeth not who is superiour to them both in the same kind of power And he in this businesse betweene the people and the Prince when the question is about temporall authoritie and subiection is God alone then whom alone the King is lesse in temporall matters as in spirituall the Pope Seeing then all men doe ingenuously confesse that this fulnesse of the Apostolike power is not so great that the Pope may in any sort dispense in those things which are bidden or forbidden by the expresse word of God which Axiome or Proposition Bellarmine chiefely resteth on while he would shew That the Pope cannot subiect himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Popes power ouer all men is saith he by the law of God but the Pope cannot dispence in the law of God We
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
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
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