ministerie likewise of the Pope whereof the former from the Synagogue to the Church although it may be rightly concluded in forme as they say yet it commeth short for the purpose because it offendeth in matter because the Synagogue hath neuer had any temporall power ouer Kings And the latter is not of force but in that case that the same may befall to the Pope now which befell to Samuel in those times viz. that as the Lord spake to Samuel touching Saul so he should speake to the Pope by name about the abdication of some certaine King and of substituting an other in his place For in this case it cannot bee denied but that the authoritie of the Pope is equall to Samuels and his Ministerie alike in executing the Commandement of God But if not I meane if the Lord hath not expresly spoken to the Pope in his eare I pray you how can it be that when he desires by his owne proper authoritie to thrust any King out of his Throne that he should maintaine that hee doth it by the example of Samuel whom God did delegate by a speciall charge and an extraordinarie mission to signifie his decree touching the abdication of Saul Samuel knew certainely that God had reiected Saul and all his race that they should not raigne for the Lord told him so much But the Pope knowes not whether God haue reiected that Prince whom he desires to depose vnlesse God hath specially reuealed it to him Seeing there is nothing more certaine by the Scriptures then that God doth for diuers causes tolerate wicked Kings and contemners of his word and doth cause them to raigne for the time whom when it pleaseth him he either conuerteth to him or euerteth and ouerthroweth And it happeneth often that they whom the Pope who iudgeth according to outward appearance pronounceth vnworthie to raigne by their present conditions and state of life those the Lord to whom all things are present declareth to be most worthie to raigne their mindes being conuerted to holinesse and grace whereof not â—ong agone we haue seen a memorable example now in our age For who knoweth not I speake it to the honour and glorie of this great King that HENRY the IV. who now most happily gouerneth the sterne of the Kingdome of France and I pray God he may gouerne long was not onely excommunicate by Gregorie and Sixtus Popes but also was so reiected and abandoned and depriued of all right of Kingdome that by their censures they declared him vncapable of any kingdome or gouernment whatsoeuer whose iudgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorne and demonstrated that the King which was reproued by them was most worthie of a worthie Kingdome Seeing then these things stand thus and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God how can the Pope know and vnderstand the pleasure and will of God vnlesse like vnto Samuel he be aduertised before Therefore that which Sanders saith That King who shall refuse to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope c. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to excute those things which the Lord shall command him by speciall reuelation For otherwise what shall we say Philip the Faire did he therefore disdaine to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope because he would not heare Boniface swelling with a most proud ambition that it should bee thought that he might bee by Boniface depriued of the right of his crowne and an other to bee substituted in his place What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not heare Iulius the II. being complete armed and playing the souldier rather then the Pope did hee seeme to haue contemned God speaking by the mouth of the Pope so farre is both he and his fauoureâ—s should deserue to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdomes at the pleasure of man that boiled inwardlie with a priuate hatred against him To belieue such matters good Lord should I tearme it ignorance or madnesse But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by vs. His second argument to confesse plainely the weaknesse of my witte I doe not well vnderstand to what purpose it aimeth For that it may haue some strength and force to proue the point which is in hand and to bee consequent and agreable to that which is concluded we must of force admit two most false suppositions as true and necessary Whereof one is That they who either did foretell any thing that should come to passe by reuelation from God or by his commaundement willed any thing to bee done might by their own right I meane by their proper authority and ordinary vertue of then office without any speciall reuelation or commaundement from God commaunde the same whatsoeuer it was to be done or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselues As though Ahias the Silonite whome God had sent to Ieroboam with a speciall charge that hee should tell him that he will giue him ten Tribes out of the Kingdome of Salomon in these words Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel Behold I will rent the Kingdome out of the hand of Salomon and will giue theeten Tribes As though I say Ahias without any such expresse commaundement of God without any speciall reuelation might haue called Ieroboam or any other into Salomons Kingdome or into part thereof Then which nothing can bee said more falsly or foolishly And the other supposition is that all Priests and Prophets of the old law had authority to bestow to take away kingdoms so farre forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people which also is most false neither is there to bee found in all the scriptures any example or steppe or taken of the same Seeing then the whole force of this second argument is so grounded on these two false suppositions that it cannot bee rightly concluded except they be granted that it is euident enough that there is no firme consequence ápotestate delegatia Principe ad potestatem ordi 〈◊〉 that is from the authority of a Committee from a Prince to the authority of an ordinary officer who doth not see by his owne iudgement without much Logicke that all this busines which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias is as farre as may be from that which he hath vndertaken to proue The third argument also is euen of the same stuffe for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias for the speciall execution of certaine busines to the ordinary office of the Pope or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be Elias at the Lords commaundement by name for that Sanders omitted which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame annointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Eliseus a Prophet for him Ergo the Pope may take away and giue kingdoms and principalities as hee shall thinke good For
THe sixth is of Zacharie saith hee who being desired by the Nobilitie of France deposed Childerique and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus to be created King in his place Before I speake any thing of this example it is worth my paines to vnfold the darke storie touching the same and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie ioining the circumstances on both sides together with the opinion for proofe whereof it is brought and by this meane it may more easily appeare to the Reader how small strength it hath to confirme the proposition of the aduersaries First of all therefore in that story it is worthy the obseruation that Childerique and diuers other Meroningians that were Kings before him raigning without any authoritie at all in their Kingdomes had nothing but the vaine and idle name of a King For the treasure and power of the State were in the hands of the Officers who were called the Maiors of the Palace and who indeede swaied the whole gouernment of the Kingdome who were so much aboue the Kings and ordered and gouerned them as the King possessed nothing of his owne besides the idle name of the King and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life which the Maior of the Palace made him in his discretion but one poore Lordship in the Country of a small reuenew and in that a house where hee kept a few seruants to attend him for his necessarie seruices and to wait vpon him as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemaine If any then doe looke more neerely into the matter he shall finde that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France one who like the King in the â—hesse had onely the name of a King but no kingly authoritie as Atmoinus speaketh but the other who was called the Maior of the Palace in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdome He in name onely was vnder the King but in authoritie and power ouer the King so as he wanted nothing but the name for the full and absolute Maiestie of ruling and raigning which also at the last was giuen him by the people that the soueraigne gouernment which he swaied might be signified by the title of a soueraigne honour Therfore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel father of Pipine who ouerthrew a huge Armie of Saracens rushing into France out of Spaine King Charles saith hee hauing beaten and ouercome the armies of his enemies vnder Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victorie returned home in safetie into France the seat of his gouernment Marke how he calles the Maior of the palace a King by reason of that royall authority which he bare Secondly in that storie is to bee obserued that the Nobilitie of France being weary of the slothfulnesse of their idle Kings did with a wonderfull consent conuert their eies and hearts to Pipine Maior of the Palace sonne to Charles which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdome that hee openly without nicenesse affected the name of a King which that hee might more easily compasse without mislike and displeasure of the Commons he resolued that the Pope was first to be dealt withall by an Embassadour and his assent to be required iudging indeede as the truth was that if the Pope should giue his assent that the Commons would easily rest in his iudgement by reason of the holinesse and reuerend opinion of the See Apostolique Thirdly we must vnderstand that Zacharie the Pope was generally aduised withall in the cause of the Kings which raigned at that time in France whether ought to bee called King he who had only the name of a King and no royall authoritie or he who by his industrie and wisdome did manage and gouerne all the affaires of the State and that hee the same Pope answered generally againe that it were better that he should be called King in whom the soueraigne authoritie did reside by which answer the Nobilitie being induced doe elect Pipine King There is no question but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi that is in particular that Childerique was to bee abandoned who carried onely the false name of a King and that Pipine was in his place to bee aduanced to the Crowne But I suppose that hee answered so generally for that the proposition being deliuered in generall tearmes carried no note of any certaine person and left to the Nobilitie of France their iudgement entire and free to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique but gaue his assent with the Deposers But because his consent was especially regarded therfore certaine Historians doe precisely say that hee deposed Childerique Lastly in that storie it must be seriously and diligentlie weighed that Zacharie the Pope hauing heard Pipinus his Embassadours touching the change of the Kingdome and deposition of Childerique iudged it to bee a matter of such noueltie and difficultie also as at the first hee durst not entertaine the thought of so great an enterprise although that by this time he had vnderstood sufficiently that the sloth and idlenesse of the Merouingians did greatly endammage the Church and Christian Common-wealth vntill such time as hee was certainely perswaded and saw that the whole nobility of France did fauour Pipin and desire him for their King and moreouer that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merouingians without children so dull and blockish That he could not tell how to grieue for the losse of his kingdome as was fit for him neither was there any that would mone his case These were the inducements which being ioined with a speciall loue affection which the Pope did beare to Pipine for that he and his father Charles had with many good offices deserued well of the Church of Rome and Apostolicke Sea did moue Zacharie to essent to the French who desired this change of their Kings These things although they be in this manner written touching this businesse yet haue we great cause to doubt of the iustice of that fact I know that Bellarmine in other places out of too much good opinion of the equity of this fact of Zachary doth boldly affirme that no sober man wil deny that that Act was iust But he alledgeth nothing but that the wisest man liuing may affirm for all that that it was iniust I say he brings no probable and forcible reason whereby a wise man may perswade himselfe that the Pope did iustly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke since that in no case we ought to doe ill that good although it be very great may come thereof Now wee haue sufficienly declared that for a lawfull King to bee deposed by his owne subiects or to consent to the deposers seeing hee hath God onely aboue him to whome onely he is bound to yeeld account of his actions is by it selfe and simply euill And the two reasons which he vseth
Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest as the aduersary dreameth because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry and Childerike who succeeded no lesse lawfully but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people these she might Thus he in which words he yeeldeth a double reason of the diuersity wherefore the Church endured Constantius Iulianus Valens Valentinianus the yonger Anastasius Heraclius and other hereticall Princes but did not forbeare Leo Isaurus Henry IV. Childerike and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing One forsooth because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to haue been ready rather to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes The other because the Church or the Pope could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius Iulianus Valens and the rest of that sort aboue mentioned but as for Leo Henry Childerike and the others she could therefore them she endured these she endured not But let vs see if both the reasons of this diuersity be not false and grounded vpon mere and strange falshoods and yet none hath assigned any better nor as I thinke can assigne any saue only that which doth vtterly ouerthrow the cause of the aduersaries which is that the Church did tolerate those former Emperors and Princes because as yet that blind ambition was not crept into her by which the succeeding Popes caried away with greedinesse of glory vsurped that temporall iurisdiction whereof we speake Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spirituall iurisdiction which they exercised with indifferency vpon all persons did wholly forbeare the temporall power which they did know that it belonged not vnto them so recommending the cause of the Church to the iudgement of God did with humility and patience expect the conuersion or confusion of wicked Princes But I returne to the reasons giuen by this Author that we may see how faulty they are And indeed to deale plainly his former reason or cause of diuersity seemeth to me very vnworthy and vnfit to be alleadged by any Catholike much lesse by a Diuine which I euen for this cause haue much a doe to read without teares For what are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be souldiors then Martyrs or to defend the law of God the Church rather by swords then by sermons But he saith not so may some say What then either he saith nothing or all together some such thing For his meaning is that the difference of these and those former times as touching the coertion of Princes consisteth in this that then the Bishops ought rather to haue been fit to vndergoe Martirdome then to reduce Princes into order Which being so who can not easily perceiue by his proper iudgement and naturall logike that either this reason stands not vpon dissimilia that is termes of vnlikenesse or that is to be placed in the other part which we haue set downe And yet I dare boldly affirme that there neuer time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselues to Martirdome The lion euery where gapeth for his pray the wolfe stands watching at the sheepfolds most mighty Kings and Princes many Nations and people buckle themselues and arme against the flocke of Christ and doth this man thinke that the time doth not require that the Bishops should not expose themselues to Martirdome and lay downe their liues for the sheepe what when the Church flourished and was spread thorough the whole world the Bishops ought to hope and looke for nothing but Martirdome and now when matters are come to this passe that the Church is grieuously tossed and tumbled and as it were crouded into a corner of Europe may the Bishops bend their mindes without all feare of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martirdome what because in these daies they maintaine great traines and retinues and troopes of horse and foote to defend themselues their liues and Persons and by force and armes to deliuer the Church from the iniurie of so many Princes and people that spoile her Or rather because now adaies very few vndertake the Bishoprickes with that minde and condition that they should be encombred and vexed with those troubles either of minde or bodie which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith but that they may passe their life with case and pleasure and that they may aduance and magnifie their owne house and bloud by the goods of the poore and Patrimonie of Christ Or lastly because that being hirelings and mercenarie Pastors they doe beleeue that it is very lawfull for them when the Wolfe comes and teares the Flocke to take their heeles and to auoide Martirdome I doe not bring forth these things to cast iniurie or enuie vpon the Ecclesiasticall order which I euer reuerenced and honoured from a child Neither doe I doubt but there are many who doe keepe most carefully and watchfully the flocke committed to them being ready vpon all occasions euen with their bodies to defend the sheepe committed to their keeping and with their bloud to seale the confession of Christ. But I speake all this in reproofe of the former answere and with all to their shame who now in euery place affect the dignities of the Church without any purpose of life fit for the Church but that they themselues may liue brauely and gallantly and that they may consume that wealth which the puritie of an Ecclesiasticall life doth well deserue vpon vses either vnlawfull or surely not necessarie very dishonestly and to the great scandall of the Church O the times O the manners of men The greatest part of the Christian common weale within these hundred yeeres or there abouts is vtterly perished Euen by this very meane that many Bishops and Priests being more forward to armes then to Martirdome haue vnaduisedly followed the meaning of the former answere supposing forsooth that which was not so that Heresie might easily bee oppressed by armes while themselues in the meane time held their owne course of life that is cherished their owne former pleasure and slothfulnesse Therefore they saw the Wolfe comming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolues themselues I speake no secrets now Scotland and England are my witnesses and other Countries which are slipped into* heresie wherein although many resisted manfully yet the greatest part of the Church-men did not endure so much as the first assault but presently in shamefull manner put in practise their treason and defection partly that they might enioy the fauour to liue freely which was both promised and permitted vnto them by the Nouators partly least that they being depriued of all their present meanes should fall to beggerie whereas if like those first Fathers in times past they had
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
a kingdome forfeited they haue him onely their Iudge and not the Church or the Pope Whereby it doth easily appeare how captious those reasons and conclusions are which Sanders from whom Bellarmine hath receiued this stuffe of his doth deduce out of those manner of promises made either secretly or expresly For as concerning those formes of asking and answering which he with many idle words and falsely deuiseth betweene the Pope and the Princes which come to the Church we must answer that they are fondly conceiued by him and that they neither ought nor are accustomed to passe in the admittance of Heathen Princes which come to the Church least the Church should seeme either to suspect them or to diuine and conceiue ill of them for the time to come Therfore their burning loue towards Christ and present confession of their faith whereby they in general tearms promise that they wil giue there names to Christ and become children of the Church and will renounce the diuel and his works and keep the commandements of God and the Church and such like are cause sufficient enough that they should be receiued All which matters they doe indeed promise to Christ the Church receiuing the promise as his Spouse in whose boosome they are regenerate or the Bishop himselfe not as a man but as a Minister of Christ God himselfe discharging a Deputies office heerein and therefore the obligation is principally taken to Christ himselfe by the Church or the Pope Whereby although they haue also promised all other things which Sanders hath comprehended in that forged forme of his and shall afterwards neglect or wholy contemne that couenant agreed on they can be punished by him onely into whose words they did sweare and who is the Lord of all temporall estates and whom they haue for their onely Iudge ouer them intemporall matters but not by him to whom the care onely of spirituall matters and to take the promise is committed And to these spirituall matters are those things most like and most resemble them which we see daily to be obserued in the ciuill Gouernment They who aspire to the succession of Feudes or Fees whether they come in by hereditarie right or by any other title cannot enioy them vnlesse they first be admitted into his clientele and seruice who is Lord of the Fee that is vnlesse they in words conceiued doe take the oath of fealtie to the Lord which they commonly call Homagium or Hominium But if it be the Kings fee to which they succeed the King doth seldome in his owne Person take the oath of fealtie but executeth that businesse for the most part by his Chancellor or soem other Deputie especially assigned for that purpose Therefore the Chancellor when hee admits to Fees and Honors great Personages swearing into the Kings wordes he dischargeth the same office vnder the King in a Ciuill administration and iurisdiction which the Pope doth vnder Christ in the spirituall gouernment of the Church when he receiues Princes comming vnto her by taking the oath of their faithfulnesse and pietie towards God And the Chancellor the Tenant once admitted although after he breake his oath and commit the crime which they call Felonie may in no cause take away the Fee which is the proper right of the King alone and not granted to the Chancellor at all So neither can the Pope depriue of Kingdomes and authoritie or any way temporally punish Princes receiued into the Church although they offend grieuouslie afterward or forsake the faith Because that is reserued to God onely Therfore although Christian Kings and Princes be in the Church and in respect that they are the Children of the Church be inferiour to the church and the Pope notwithstanding in regard that they doe beare a soueraigne rule temporall in the world they are not inferiours but rather superiours and therefore although they haue forfeited their kingdome by secret or expresse couenant yet neither people nor Pope nor church canne take it away from them But onely Almightie God alone from whom is all power and to whom aloue they are inferiour in Ciuill administration And neither shall Bellarmine nor any other be euer able to bring or as I may say to digge out of the monuments of any age any forcible argument whereby he may make it plaine vnto vs that secular Kings and Princes when they were receiued to the Faith by the Church did in such manner renounce their interest as both to lay downe altogether the temporall authoritie which they had receiued of God and also to subiect themselues to the Church to be iudged in Ciuill affaires and to be chastised with temporall punishment And if none of them can demonstrate this they must needs confesse that Kings and Princes did after the faith receiued retaine their Kingdomes and Empires in the same Right the same Libertie and Authoritie wherein they possessed them before such time as they came to the Church because as the Aduersaries doe confesse Lex Christineminem priuat iure suo If therefore before Baptisme they had no Iudge aboue them in temporall matters but God alone neither ought they to haue any after Baptisme But we haue spoken more of this matter in the refutation of the first reason In this place I stand not much vpon Bozius his dotages Now for that he vnderlaies after this fourth reason in the words following For he is not fit to receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme who is not ready to serue Christ and for his sake to loose whatsoeuer he hath For the Lord saith Lu. 14. if any man come to me and hateth not father and mother and wife and children yea and euen his owne life he cannot be my Disciple I cannot tell to what end he vseth these words Surely no man denies it But what of it Such a reason belongs no more to the purpose then that which is furthest from the matter nor that neither which followeth in the same place Besides saith he the Church should grieuously erre if she should admit any King which would with impunitie cherish euery manner of sect and defend heretikes and ouerthrow Religion This is most true But as I said it belongs nothing to the purpose for now the question is not of that matter but of the temporall power of the Church or of the Pope who is the substitute head thereof vnder Christ I meane whether he haue that power whereby he may chastise with temporall punishments Kings and Princes duely receiued if after they shall breake the faith and forsake the dutie vndertaken by them in the lauer of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proued or disprooued by these correllaries and additions and for this cause we passe them ouer CHAP. XXV THe fift and last reason is drawen from his Pastorall charge and office in these wordes When it was said to Peter Feed my sheepe Iohn the last all the power was giuen him which was necessarie to maintaine the
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
because they are separated not by humane but by diuine power who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church by translation deposition or cession For quoth he not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome who beareth the person not of a pure man but of the true God in earth weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church dissolueth not by humane but rather by diuine authoritie Thus he These manner of speeches and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour that they suppose whatsoeuer is done by the Pope is done by God himselfe because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning I confesse that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words nor more hard for the sense that in expounding the same the wits of all Interpreters doe faile For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly plainly and cleerely then this That not man but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue Or what followeth more rightly of any thing then this of that position Ergo that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie which is consummate carnall copula betweene maried persons And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion and therefore wee must confesse that that whereof it followeth is false also because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true Which when Hostiensis had obserued when I say hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason But that reason quoth he sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it is not sufficient vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood for by that it would follow that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie But for all that Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth For that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie because as he saith before carnall copulation by a common dissent it may be dissolued the Popes authoritie comming betweene arg cap. 2 cap. expublico de conuers coniugat Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason for as touching the rescripts alleged by him and if there be any such like they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus in which case there is no neede of the Pope authoritie to interuene or any pontificiall dispensation but that they are warranted by meere right and the common helpe of the law who in that manner doe procure a separation and breake off matrimonie But that a matrimonie ratified and not yet consummate may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope by the common dissent of the parties that wee are to denie constantly and that according to the most learned Diuines For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or essence of matrimonie for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction and consent of mindes whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other But the procreation of children and the bed-fellowship for that cause is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie but to the end Hence is it said by the heathen that Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit Not the fellowship of the bedde but the consent of the mindes makes mariages And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions Otherwise surely that first mariage which God instituted in Paradise was not a mariage vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence began to prouide for issue then which what can be more absurd Moreouer there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church no authoritie of Fathers no decretall Epistle of the Pope in a word there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour matrimonie ratified although not consummate Quos Deus conâ—unxit homo ne separet Nay and hee cannot except vnlesse it be true that they who being contracted are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie are not ioined by God But there is in this matter as in others so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law that they are not ashamed to auerre that not onely matrimonie ratified but not consummate and that against the common iudgement of the Diuines but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction may be dissolued by the Pope aswell as by God himselfe which if it should bee true how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them who haue grace and power with the Pope or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes being blinded with desire of money J leaue to others to iudge But there is no cause why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons with words of the present time Contracted may in no case bee dissolued except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion For it is not credible that so learned and godly a Bishop had either so sodainely forgot himselfe or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius CHAP. XXIX NOw if any aske my opinion and interpretation of them I am not afraid to say as in a matter of this obscurity that I am at a stand notwithstanding that I doe thinke that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that the mind of this good Bishop and the sense of the wordes doe differ which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning or do omit some necessary particle or exception for to make the constitution plaine and entire for otherwise it is not likely that hee who denieth that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke that he may haue propertie of goods or marry a wife would affirme that the Pope may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate What is the matter then I will speake what I thinke I haue obserued that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine that although hee compare each mariage in this that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely yet where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop and Vicar of Iesu Christ he conioineth
them together no more nor makes mention of carnall matrimony but onely of spirituall which not deemed to be separated by man but by God himselfe then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered not out of humane but rather out of diuine authority by translation deposition or cession by which silence and omission of carnall Matrimony he doth sufficiently implie that in the manner of separation it doth differ and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this viz. the carnall as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner God hath reserued to his own iudgement the dissolution as well of the carnall as of the spirituall matrimony notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter the necessity or commoditie of the Churches c. may dissolue them which when he doth not man but God doth separate whose Person the Pope beareth in earth Now why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage and not a carnall also the reason is plaine and easie because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe and euerie way doth belong to the ordination gouernement and oeconomie of the Church which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage seeing they are not able without it to execute and discharge the office committed to them And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes themselues as Hierarches that is spirituall Gouernors doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters persons of the Church wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same who hath by name committed this dispensation and procuration to them But carnall matrimony was instituted not for the ordination of the Church but onely for procreation of issue and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature and to be common to all nations and countries neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church but that it is a Sacrament in the new law containing the my sterie of God and the soule of Christ and the Church And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors the power to dissolue the same They haue inough to discerne iudge if it be a mariage that they may know if it bee a sacrament Therefore although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage viz by remouing all impediments which doe arise out of the positiue law and ecclesiasticall constitutions and giue order that it may duly and rightly be contracted which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme yet when as either through the common law permitting or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited it was contracted hath no power for any cause in the world to relaxe and dissolue the same Neither doth it belong to the matter that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall we see often that separation is made of those persons as haue liued a long time together vnder the conceit and shew of mariage For neither the Pope in that case nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority doth dissolue any matrimony but by his iudgement declareth that the matrimony which indeede was contracted de fasto or was falsly supposed to be a mariage was no mariage at all enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together to depart one from an other and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance But this is not to dissolue Matrimony or to separate persons lawfully ioined as concerning the bond of mariage Whereby it is euident that both Innocentius the Interpreter who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name and also Ioh Andr. who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined let no man separate Of their owne authority say they but man doth not separate carnall matrimony when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope but God himselfe by whose authority those constitutions were made As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons and make a nullitie in the law because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted to breake or loose the band no constitution either of Pope or church can do Otherwise the Apostle in those words The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth but if her husband doe sleepe she is free I say he did ill to make mention of death onely if shee may be free by some other meanes viz. the Popes constitutions the mariage it selfe being dissolued And now since these things are thus it is time to returne from this by-way into which the vnreasonable flattery and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs into that path from whence wee haue digressed CHAP. XXX IT is now positiuely set downe and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters that the Pope cannot make grace to any of the naturall and diuine law or as we vsually speake now a dayes cannot dispense against the law of nature and of God and grant that that may bee done without guilt which God and nature haue forbidden or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done and this not onely the Diuines but also the Canonists of the better sort doe very earnestly maintaine Therefore this is a most grounded Axâ—ome whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter Surely we do admit his proposition which is That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues that hee may driue them away by all the meanes he is able Wee admit also the Assumption That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God are heretickes Where hee concludeth in this manner Ergo If a Prince of a sheepe or ramme turne Wolfe that is to say of a Christian turne an hereticke the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also may charge the people that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects Surely a very vnsound collection In stead whereof in good Logicke should bee put this conclusion Ergo If any Prince of a sheepe or a ramme turne Wolfe the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can For this ariseth rightly out of the former
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
men and is iudged of no man And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malitious Pope whensoeuer he conceiueth and burneth with any priuate hatred against any King though he be neuer so good to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogatiue that hee may turne him out of his Kingdome and reduce him to the estate of a priuate man Which J would not speake in this place for I would not presage so hardly of the Gouernours of the holy See but that all the world doth vnderstand that the same hath in former ages beene practised by diuers Popes And it is not yet aboue the age of a good olde man since Iulius the II. did most wickedly and vniustly take from Iohn King of Nauarre his Kingdome by Ferdinando of Aragon by this very pretence of the Papall authoritie the same Iohn being not guiltie or conuinced of any crime but onely because he fauoured Lewes the French King And if to doe matters of this nature is not to be superiour in temporall affaires I would gladly learne of these great Masters what it is to be a superiour One thing I know if this opinion of theirs bee true that the Pope is able to doe more against Kings indirectly then if he should haue directly any command ouer them Of which point we haue spoken something before If therefore the Pope de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine shall goe about by his Decree or Bull to forbidde them to obey their King may not all the people againe or some in the peoples behalfe answer the Pope in this manner Holy Father You are not aboue our King in temporalties and in that respect you cannot hinder the temporall obedience which wee performe vnto him Why doe you forbidde vs to doe that which God commands vs to doe Is it because it is at your pleasure to interprete the will of God comprehended in the diuine Law and in the Scriptures But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation bee made as doth wholly make the law void and vtterly doth destroy and dissolue the commandement If there be any thing doubtfull or darke in the Law of God wee presently flie to the See of Peter that is to the See which you now doe hold to receiue the interpretation of the truth but that which is cleere and manifest of it selfe that needeth no light of any interpretation Seeing then our Lord and Sauiour commands vs to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those things which are Gods and after by his Apostle to be subiect to Princes and Powers and to bee obedient to them It is your part to declare vnto vs what things be Caesars that is to say what things belong to our King and what be Gods that both of them may haue that which belongeth to them and in this distinction of things we will willingly heare your voice But when you say I will haue you giue nothing to Caesar or to your Prince you contradict Christ and therefore wee heare not your voice Wee doe indeede confesse and professe also that the exposition and interpretation of your Holinesse should take place touching the obseruation of the diuine Law but we affirme absolutely that that is not to be receiued which maketh a scorne both of the Law of God and of Nature and bringeth the same into contempt As for example not to digresse from the matter we haue in hand We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates in the obseruation of this commandement we as obedient children doe willingly embrace your expositions and restraints which doe not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandement it selfe as when you say that from hence there growes no obligation to obey Kings but in those matters which belong to their temporall iurisdiction that all spirituall things are to bee reserued to the Vicar of Christ and to the Church Also when as you doe aduertise vs that wee ought not to yeeld obedience to the King in that which he commands against the Law of God or Nature or which otherwise is repugnant to good manners But when as you simply and absolutely command vs that we doe not in any sort obey our lawfull Prince or any of his charges commandements and lawes wee may not obey this commandement of yours because this is not to interprete the Commandement of God which is granted to your Holinesse but vtterly to abrogate and ouerthrow the same which you cannot doe by any meanes Christ when he deliuered to Peter the keies of the kingdome of heauen did not giue him power faciends de peccato non peccatum that is to say that which is sinne to make it to be none Therefore in this point we will follow the common doctrine of the Canonists That we ought not to obey the Popes commandement if either it bee vniust or that many mischiefes or scandals are likely to ensue thereof or else the disturbance and disquietnesse of the state of the Church and the Christian Common-wealth be likely to grow of the same and therefore if the Pope should command any thing to religious men which were against the substance of order that is which should bee contrarie to the rule professed by them they are not bound to obey it as Felinus interpreteth in cap. accepimus de fid instrum cap. si quando de rescript as the same Innocent teacheth elsewhere whom Martin of Carats in his tractate De Principibus quast 408. and Felinus in de cap. si quando and d. cap. accepimus doth report and follow How much lesse then ought the subiects of Kings to giue eare to the Pope going about to withdraw them from the obedience which is due to their King by the law of God and Nature and confirmed with the most straight obligation of an oath If you will vs to withdraw our neckes from the yoke and seruice of our King for this cause because a spirituall good is hindred by our obedience which is giuen to him by vs wee answer that this mischiefe whatsoeuer it bee chanceth to fall out by some accident for simply and of it selfe euill cannot grow out of good nor good out of euill Now wee haue against our willes committed that accident but we cannot hinder it Wee discharge the dutie due to our King and according to patience in doing well wee seeke glorie honour and immortalitie He if he abuse the obedience due vnto him and so great a benefit of God hee shall feele God to be a most sharpe Judge and Reuenger ouer him But it is not lawfull for vs to forsake our dutie and to transgresse the commandement of God that euen a very great good should follow thereby lest wee purchase to our selues the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce He that commands to obey our Kings and to yeeld to Casar those things which be Casars putteth no distinction betweene good and euill Princes and therefore ought not we to make any
distinction If as B. Augustine teacheth hee who hath vowed continence to God ought by no meanes to offend euen with this recompence that he beleeueth he may lawfully marie a wife because she who desires to marie with him hath promised that shee will bee a Christian and so may purchase to Christ the soule of a woman which lieth in the death of infidelitie who if shee marie him is ready to prooue a Christian What excuse shall wee vse to God if wee for the hope of some contingent good should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths which wee haue giuen to God and our King For there is nothing more precious then a soule for which our Lord and Sauiour hath vouchsafed to die And therefore if we may not sinne to gaine that to Christ for what cause shal it be lawfull for vs to sinne Moreouer in that you say that you doe free vs and pronounce vs free from the bond of this dutie that taketh not from vs all scruple of conscience but causeth vs to hang in suspence and the more to doubt of your authoritie because wee know that the commaundement wherein you promise to dispence with vs is ratified by the law of God and Nature and that your Holinesse can neuer no not by vertue of the fulnesse of your power dispense with any in the law of God and Nature Therefore wee will obey you in spirituall matters and the King in temporall matters God commands both wee will performe both To be short the comminations and threatnings which you insert in your Mandate we doe wonder at surely and in some part we feare them but yet we are not altogether so fearefull as to bee more afraid of them then we ought or that we should be so terrified with them as for feare of an vniust Excommunication to denie to our King the iust and lawfull obedience which is due vnto him For although it bee a common speech that euery Excommunication is to bee feared yet we ought to know that an vniust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced but rather him by whom it is denounced Therefore if you strike vs with the edge of your Excommunication because we will not at your commandement transgresse the Commandement of God and malum facere your malediction and curse shal be turned into a blessing so as although we may seeme to be bound outwardly yet inwardly wee remaine as it were loosed and innocent These and such like are the reasons which haue so settled the faith as well of the Clergie as Nobilitie and euen of the whole Commons of France toward their Kings that they haue resolutely withstood certaine Popes who haue earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyaltie and obedience of their Kings and haue scorned the Popes Bulles and the sentence of deposition and depriuation from the kingdome nay more that they haue not beleeued therefore not without reason that they are bound by any Ecclesiastique Censures or may iustly bee enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication For my part surely I doe not see what may iustly bee blamed in the former answer and defense of the people vnlesse it be imputed to them and be sufficient to conuince them of contumacie because they doe not by and by put in execution without all delay or examination of the equitie euery commandement of the Pope as though it were deliuered euen by the voice of God himselfe which I thinke none in his right wits will iudge As for the other points they are grounded on most firme demonstrations most sound reasons and arguments and reasons of diuine and humane law viz. That it is the commandement of God that honour and obedience should be yeelded to Kings and Princes no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded That all the authoritie of the Pope consisteth in spirituall matters That temporall affaires are left to secular Kings and Princes That the Pope is not superiour to Kings in temporall matters and therefore that he cannot punish them with temporal punishments Lastly that the Pope can in no sort dispense against the Law of Nature and of God whereby this obedience is commanded the subiects toward the Prince and for that cause can neither absolue and discharge the subiects from that obligation nor by iust excommunication censure them who doe not obey him when he forbiddeth them to giue lawfull obedience to the Prince Al which points are seuerally and distinctly concluded before with authorities testimonies and arguments which in my opinion cannot be answered which notwithstanding I will leaue to the iudgement of the Church For this is my minde and resolution to submit my selfe and all mine to the censure and iudgement of my most holy Mother CHAP. XXXI THose things which hitherto haue beene deliuered by vs of the soueraigne authoritie of Kings and Princes and of the dutie which is not to bee denied to them in all things which are not repugnant to Gods Commandements and to good manners they are confirmed by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers and the whole Church For although they had great opportunitâ—e and meanes to pull downe and to defect from their gouernment wicked Christian Princes by whom they had beene wronged with priuate and publike iniuries yet in no maner did they moue any question against them touching their authoritie and rule they denied them no parcell of humane obsequie and obedience Only they wisely freely and stoutly resisted their errours And so holding the multitude in their dutie towards God and their King they obserued both precepts of fearing God and honouring the King And in very deede this is the principall remedie to preserue mens mindes from slipping and reuoke them from errour and the most ready way and meane to reduce Kings and Princes being furiously caried headlong with a frenticke heresie from immanitie and fiercenesse to courtesie and mildnesse from errour to truth from heresie to the faith which course the ancient Fathers euer held in such like cases which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages and had not arrogated to themselues that same insolent and proud and hatefull domination ouer Kings and Emperours in temporall matters it had gone better then at this time it doth with the Christian Common-wealth and peraduenture those heresies wherewith wee are now sore pressed might haue beene strangled in the very cradle For euen the issue and the euent of businesse to this day doth sufficiently teach that the Popes doe little or nothing auaile while they hold this high slipperie and steepe headlong way but that they doe more times raise troubles schismes and warres by this meane in Christian Countries then propagate the faith of Christ or increase the profit and enlarge the liberty of the Church How vnprofitable and hurtfull to the Christian Common-wealth that assault was of Gregorie the VII vpon Henrie the IV. which Gregorie was the
reason before related by vs is by him propounded in these words A shepheard may shedde and shut vp the furious rammes which destroy the flocke But a Prince is a furious ramme destroying the flocke when he is in faith a Catholicke but so wicked as hee doth much hurt Religion and the Church as if he should sell Bishoprickes spoile Churches c. Ergo the Pastor of the Church may reclude him he should haue rather said exclude him for recludere is aperire or to reduce him into the rancke of the sheepe Surely wee doe admitte this argument and whatsoeuer beside is by necessary consecution inferred thereof now no other thing can be inferred but that it is lawfull for the Pastor of the Church by which name we vnderstand the Pope in this place to expell an euill Prince out of the Lords fold and to exclude him that he rest not in the Lords sheepe-cotes with the rest of the Christian flocke that is to say by Ecxommunication to cast him out of the Communion of the Church of the Saints and to depriue him of all the benefites of regeneration in Christ and to deliuer him to Satan vntill hee make lawfull satisfaction for his offence and contumacie And this punishment is wholy spirituall and ecclesiastick and the greatest of all other which the Church hath which he cannot goe beyond no not against a priuate person vnlesse it be to go to the Prince ciuill as being superiour to the offender and beseech him to punish the iniurie offered to the holy mother who for that shee is a nurse of the Church ought to chastice with corporall and ciuill punishments the offenders and rebels to the same But the Church wanteth this temporall aide when as he is the soueraigne Prince himselfe who commits that for which hee may be worthily excommunicate because he hath no superior by no law can be challenged to punishment being free and safe through the Maiestie of his gouernment Therefore although the Pastor of the Church or the Pope may by Excommunication exclude him from the flocke and so depriue him of all his spirituall benefites yet can hee take away from him none of those things which he possesseth and enioyeth by vertue of a temporall and humane interest because goods of that nature are not subiect to Ecclesiastique but to Politique lawes which are in the power of Kings And as no Christian whether Prince or priuate person can auoid the Popes iudgment in spirituall Causes so neither may any subiect of what ranke or place soeuer he be decline the iudgement of his King or Prince in temporall affaires for in that the causes of Clergie persons are committed to other then to ciuill Iudges that was granted them by the singular grace and priuiledge of Princes whereas by the common law Cleriques as wel as Laiques are subiect to the temporall authority of secular Princes And this is grounded on that reason which Bellarmine himselfe deliuers viz. That Clergie persons besides that they are Clergy persons are also Citizens and certain parts of the common wealth politique Hence it is that vnder the best and holiest Christian Princes all the causes of Clergy men as well ciuill as criminall so as they were not Ecclesiasticke were wont to bee debated before ciuill and temporall Magistrates Therefore the Clergy did owe to secular Princes this their liberty which in this point they enioy as we haue declared before in the 15. Chapter Whereby I maruaile that the same Bellarmine doth affirme that the Pope might simply by his owne authority exempt Clergy men by the Canon Law from the subiection of temporall Princes For that I may speake it with the reuerence of so great a man it is as false as false may be Because the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and interest but it should depriue if it should take away against their wils that temporall right and interest which Princes before they became Christians had ouer Clergie men Againe seeing the Pope himselfe hath obtained this exemption of his owne by no other right but by the bounty and grace of Princes For as the aduersaries confesse hee was both de iure and de facto subiect to heathen princes as other Citizens it is an absurd thing to say that he could deliuer others froÌ„ the same subiection Otherwise that might agree to him which the wicked blaspheming Iewes did vpbraid to our Sauiour Christ He hath saued others himselfe he could not saue And in this point the authority of the Fathers in Councels could not be greater then the Popes Therefore this place requireth that wee also conuince an other errour which hath sprung spread very wide out of the decrees of Counsels not diligently and aduisedly considered and which reacheth at this day I know not how farre and to what persons viz. That Councels haue freed Clergy men from the authoritie iurisdiction of Magistrates Which is as far from all truth as may be for it is no where found in any Councell that the Fathers assumed to them so much authority as to depriue secular Judges of their authority and iurisdiction ouer the Clergy or in any sort forbid them to heare and determine the causes of Clergy men being brought before them vnlesse it were after that by the singular bounty of Diuines which began from Iustintanus that priuiledge of Court was granted to Church men For when as these graue Fathers themselues which were present and presidents in Councels were subiect to temporal authority as Saint Augustine teacheth in expositione cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom. it could not bee that they should by their proper authority exempt themselues or others from that subiection Therefore wee must vnderstand that those ancient fathers of the church amongst whom the Ecclesiasticall discipline did flourish with much seuerity and sincerity which at this day is too much neglected vsed all the care and diligence that might bee that the Clergy should carry a light before the people not onely in doctrine but also in inteâ—rity of manners and innocency of life and for that cause that they admonished all Clergy men and decreed and enacted by the Canons of their councels that none of them should bring against another any ciuill or criminall complaint before a secular Iudge but that either they should compose all their controuersies among themselues by the arbitration of friends or if they would not or could not that at least they should end them by the iudgement of the Bishop And surely they ordered their matters in this manner out of the same or surely the very like aduice which S. Paul in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians gaue the Christians forbiding them that they should not draw one an other before the iudgement seates of insidell Iudges and there contend about their differences which we spake of a little before I say out of the same aduice these fathers ordained that if any thing sell out among the Clergy after the
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
GVIL BARCLAII J. C. OF THE AVTHORITIE OF THE POPE WHETHER AND HOW FARRE FORTH he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber posthumus AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD for VVilliam Aspley 1611. TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD CLEMENT the 8. Pope W. Barclay wisheth health IF Rome from Peter to this day had seene such Bishops as your Holinesse is most High Father and Prelate of Christians there had been no place for this Question at this time Your Moderation and Gentlenesse answerable to your Name either had not opened any gap to this Busines or had barred the same by some graue Prouision that it should not be opened I haue here discussed the Question touching the Temporall authoritie of your See ouer Kings and Princes which hauing been canuassed with so great Troubles and so much Blood hath as oft afflicted the Church as the Princes themselues I haue also dedicated the same to you lest I might seeme either to haue shunned your Iudgement or to haue managed rather the Cause of the Kings then of the Church If I haue not pleased euery mans taste I desire them to consider That no Medicine brings Health without bitternesse It is peraduenture an odious argument to such as be scrupulous or malitious to peruert my sense and meaning which not withstanding most Holy Father I haue vndertaken partly out of the loue of the Truth partly also for that I haue been of opinion that this Authoritic is the fountaine of all those tempests wherewith Heresie tosseth your ship at this day Pope Iulius the 2. being alienated with a sudden vnkindnes did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France but also depriued Iohn King of Nauarre of his kingdome because hee assisted the French And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France but the Nauarrois hearing the Spaniard of one side and being excluded on the other side by the Mountaines of Pyrene from the helpe of France was not able to make his part good against the furie of Rome and the ambition of Spaine Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdome he retired into France where he had a large and ancient Patrimonie In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled and the Heires of Iohn King of Nauarre inflamed with their priuate hatred did very soone passe to that side which bandied against the See of Rome Therefore came Heresie first to be seattered thorow France by the partialitie of those Princes which through the fiaming fire and after through warres hath continued to this day As for Henrie the 8 King of England who doubteth that he departed not so much from the Religion as from the Pope out of his Hatred against the very same Authoritie Clemens the 7. had denounced Henrie depriued of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms and he againe conceiued an anger which peraduenture was not vniust of his part but blinde and intemperate He opened England to Heretikes by the occasion of this schisme who afterwards growing strong vnder Edward the 6 destroyed the ancient Religion Againe Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England hauing held out vnder Iames the 5 at length was attainted in the beginning of Maries raigne and presently after infected when the poison had gathered further strength So what Heresie or Heretiques soeuer are in France and Britannie at this day which is their onlie strong hold was conceiued and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporall Authothoritie as a pestilent egge Behold most holy Father how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command which like Scianus his Horse hath euer cast his Masters to the ground Therefore haue I vndertaken this worke out of my affection to Religion and Truth not to the Princes and of a sincere and humble minde haue presented the same to you the Chiefe Pastour to whom it appertaineth to iudge of leper and leper If there be any thing in these writings which you shall thinke good and profitable I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweete remembrance of so great a Witnesse But if allowing my affection yet you shall not allow my Iudgement it shall be to posteritie an argument of your Moderation that vnder you the simple libertie of Disputation hath not been preiudiciall to any Let this be an argument of your Moderation but neuer of my Obstinacie For whatsoeuer is in this businesse I leaue it to your Censure that in this booke I may seeme not so much to haue deliuered what I thinke as to haue enquired of your Holinesse what I ought to thinke Fare you well The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholike disposition to the See of Rome and his sinceritie in the handling of this question The opinion of the Diuines and Canonists touching the Popes authoritie in temporall matters and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers and a taxation of Bozius his sophistrie touching the same Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporall iurisdiction but rather inioyned Obedience to be giuen euen to Heathen Princes and a comparison betweene the ambition and vsurpation of the later Popes and humilitie of the ancient Chap. 4. That the later Popes serued themselues of two aduantages to draw to themselues this vast authoritie Temporall ouer Princes viz. partly through the great reuerence which was borne to the See of Rome partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication Chap. 5. That it cannot be proued by any authoritie either Diuine or Humane that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporall authoritie ouer any Christian Princes Chap. 6. That no instance can be giuen of any Popes of higher times that any such authoritie was vsurped and practised by them and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times in regard of the modestie and pietie of the former Chap. 7. An answere made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people coerce and chastise the olde Emperors and Kings and therefore forbare them more then now she neede to doe Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage to execute any lawfull power vpon euill Princes but she forbare to doe it in regard she knew not any such power ouer them Chap. 9. That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine that Henrie the 4. Emperour and other Christian Princes vpon whom the Popes haue practised their pretended temporall authoritie might be dealt withall more securely then the former Princes Chap. 10. The censure of the worthie Bishop Frisingens vpon the course which Gregorie the 7. tooke against Henrie the 4. Emperour and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church and vnfortunate to the Pope himselfe Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
destroied Iulianus Whom if you consider their valour and resolution the vse and experience of armes if opportunitie the easie accesse of souldiers to their Commanders in those times if disposition the feruent heat of their mindes burning with desire of Martyrdome and vndertaking any thing for the defence of the faith would haue made them much more ready and eager to deliuer the Church by some notorious action from the treacherie and tyrannie of such a villanous person much more I say then any precipitate rashnesse could set on a brainsicke and furious monke What may we thinke that the Christians of that time did heare the famous trumpets of the Gospel Athanasius Basilius both the Gregories Cyrillus Epihanius Hilarius Hosius and many other Bishops excelling in vertue and learning who by reason of their learning could not be ignorant what interest the Church had ouer Princes and if they had knowen and vnderstood the same by reason of their great sanctitie of life and constancie in aduersitie would not haue held their peace and dissembled the same in so importunate a businesse to the Christian common-weale What may wee thinke that those diuine Prelates taught the people that there was no remedie against that Apostata but in patience and teares for so saith Nazianzenus These things saith he did Iulianus intend he speaketh of those things which the Apostata meditated against the Church as his minions and witnesnesses of his counsels did publish notwithstanding he was restrained by the mercy of God and the teares of the Christians who were in great abundance and by many powred out when as they had this onely remedie against the Persecutors I beseech you Reader that you would obserue consider Nazianzenus well in this place He affirmeth that the Christians that is the Church had no remedie besides teares against the persecution of Iulianus when as notwithstanding it is certaine that they had at their seruice the whole armie of Iulianus Therefore surely this Pope who for his singular excellencie was called the Diuine did not thinke that the Church hath any power ouer a most vngodly Emperour to raise the Christian army against him otherwise it were false that Christians or the Church had no other remedie but teares against a persecutor for they had an armie which being commanded by the Church would easily for the cause of God haue fallen away from Iulianus Now that which we said of Constantius and Iulianus that without great difficultie they might haue beene brought into order by the Church and depriued of Scepters and life without any harme to the people the same is much more apparent in Valens and Valentinianus the yoonger For the chiefe Commanders and Captaines of Valens his armie were good Catholikes by whom hee managed all his warres being himselfe an idle and slothfull Prince and those were Terentius Traianus Arintheus Uictor and others who constantly professed the Catholike faith and boldly vpbraided the Emperour to his face with his heresie and impietie against God but in so religious a libertie they held their hands neither did their heate and anger proceed beyond the bounds of admonition because they knew it was their dutie onely to tell the Prince his faultes but not to punish the same Therefore in all matters which belonged to temporall gouernment they yeelded obedience to this heretike whom they might easily haue remoued and to the great good of the afflicted Church haue reduced backe againe the whole Monarchie to Ualentinianus a Catholike Prince from whom it came Could not these Commanders of his forces conclude a league amongst themselues against their Prince being an heretike if it had beene lawfull for them so to doe Was it not more profitable for the Church that an heretike Emperour should not gouerne Catholikes Or did the Church all that time want learned and watchfull Pastors and by that meanes either neglected or did not vnderstand her temporall interest for what which onely remaines to bee said no age did euer beare Christians more obedience and dutifull to their Prelates then that did that if so bee the Church had wanted not the power to sway Princes in temporall matters but the execution onely of that power the people and armie would not haue beene long before they had deliuered her from the tyranny of Constatius Iulianus and Valens To which the worthy testimonie of S. Augustine giues faith registred among the Canōs Iulianus saith he was an Infidel Emperour Was he not an Apostata vniust an Idolater Christian souldiers seruedan Infidell Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none but him that was in heauen When he would haue them to worship Idols to sacrifice they preferred God before him But when he said draw foorth the Companies get you against that countrey presently they obeied For they distinguished their eternall from the temporall Lord And yet for their eternall Lord his sake they were subiect euen to a temporall Lord. Who doth not see in this place that it was the easiest matter in the world for the Church euery maner of way to chastise Iulianus if the had had any temporall power ouer him For then the cause of Christ had come in question in which case the souldiers would preferre Christ before the Emperour that is the eternall Lord before the temporall Lord for the Churches cause is the cause of Christ. Therefore either the Bishops of Rome or the Popes and euen the whole Church did then beleeue for certaine that they had no temporall iurisdiction in any sort ouer secular Princes or surely they were wanting to their office nor did they so carefully prouide for the flock committed to their charge as now after many ages our last Popes haue done who maintaine very earnestly that it belongeth to a part of their Pastorall office to chastise all Princes and Monarches not onely for heresie or schisme but also for other causes and that with temporall punishment and euen to spoile them of their Empires and Kingdomes if it shall please them Whereas otherwise neither they are to be compared with those first Bishops for holinesse of life and learning and the Christian people in these times is not so obedient as in those first times they were Wherefore if we loue the truth we must confesse that no man can either accuse or excuse the Bishops of both times in this point without preuarication or calumniation the praise of each will turne to the dispraise of the other But let vs goe forward CHAP. VIII VAlentinian the yonger of all who to this day gouerned not onely an Empire but Kingdome or any Principalitie might most easily haue beene coerced and bridled by the Church for he might haue beene not onely thrust out of his Empire at the commandement of the chiefe Bishop that is the Bishop of Rome but euen at the becke and pleasure of a poore Bishop of Millane Ambrose be forsaken of his owne souldiers and guard and be reduced to the state of
a priuate man Before day saith Ambrose as soone as I set my foote out of dores the Palace was beset round about with souldiers and it is reported that word was sent the Emperour by the souldiers that if he would come forth he should haue leaue but yet that they would be ready to attend him if they saw that he did agree with the Catholikes otherwise that they would passe ouer to the companie that Ambrose gathered Not one of the Arrians durst come forth because neither any of them were Citizens a few of them of the Princes house and many of them Gothes who as before they had a Carte for their house so now a Carte is their Church And after in the same Epistle speaking of himselfe I am called a Tyrant quoth he yea and more then a Tyrant for when his friends intreated the Emperour that hee would come out to the Church and told him withall that they did it at the request of his souldiers he answered If Ambrose command you I will deliuer my selfe to be bound What say the Aduersaries to this is not this one place enough to stop all mens mouthes I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italie with a great armie gathered out of the parts of Britaine and France to prouide as hee pretended that Catholike religion should receiue no further harme and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himselfe which notwithstanding was not his onely end but that which in our age hath beene practised by diuers with this colour of Pietie he couered his burning desire of raigning for he was determined hauing now killed Gratianus at Lyons to inuade Ualentinianus his Empire Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his comming fled out of Italie into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperour of the East A matter worth the noting An Heretike being chased by a Catholike flies for succour to a Catholike of whom he is both rebuked for his heresie and for the reuerence of his Maiestie courteously receiued and restored to his kingdome And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawfull Prince Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire nor Restorer of the Church but a Rebell and a Tyrant Seeing these things stand thus I would now wish the Aduersaries that they would forbeare to abuse vs with their deuise and inuention or at least to tell vs whence they haue it Haue they read any where in any good Author that the Christians did then so much distrust their strength and power as that they durst not so much as attempt that which if they had resolutely vndertaken they had easily effected or that they made a proffer at the least but when they had tryed the fortune of the warre and all other humane meanes at last yeelded and lay downe vnder these wicked Princes Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospell that they did not vnderstand what power the Bishop or People had ouer a peruerse and hereticall Prince What did the heate of religion and the zeale of the house of God faile them Let the Aduersaries vnfould the memorie of all Records and turne ouer and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiasticall and prophane beleeue me they shall neuer finde that the Church in those times wherein it was much more powerfull than now it is did euer endeuour any thing to the mischiefe of Princes although they were wicked or euer went about to disanull their gouernment as hath beene plainly and plentifully prooued by vs in our bookes De Regno But cleane contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers of the power of secular Princes it is most certaine that all in that age did thinke that no temporall power did in any manner nor for any cause appertaine either to the Bishop of Rome or cheefe Bishop or to the whole Church but that for temporall punishments they were to be left to the iudgement of God alone And this as it seemeth was the cause why those fathers did so seldome and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes because indeed in those times there was no controuersie about it but one iudgement of all men which euen from the preaching of the Apostles they receiued in a manner by hand that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his iudge although in spirituall matters he be subiect to the iudgement of the Church For the first witnesse in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperours They thinke saith he that it is God alone in whose only power they are from whom they are second after whom they are first before all Gods and aboue all men and in another place we honor the Emperor so as is both lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second from God and haue obtained what so euer he is from God lesse then God only this he desires himselfe so is he greater then all men while he is lesse then the true God alone Thus much he professeth not in his particular but in the generall person of all christians as the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the whole Church Neither let any thinke to elude this argument because the Emperors at that time were without the Church and therefore not subiect to the Church For the law of Christ depriues no man of his right which the aduersaries themselues confesse and therefore as we shewed before Kings and Emperors by comming to the Church loose nothing of their temporall interest In the second place shall S. Ambrose come foorth who writing of Dauid that heaped murder vpon adultery He was a King saith he he was bound by no lawes because Kings are free from the bands of offences For they are not called to punishment by any lawes being exempte by the power of their gouernment Thirdly B. Gregorie of Towers who speakes to Childerike King of France vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously in these words If any of vâ—â—â— King would transgresse the limits of iustice he may be punished by you but if you shall exceed who shall punish you for we speake to you but if you will you heare and if you will not who shall condemne you but he who hath pronounced that he is iustice it selfe Fourthly S. Gregorie the Great who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers who being Pope himselfe confessed that he was the seruant and subiect of the Emperor and with great ciuility and humility acknowledged that all power was giuen the Emperor from heauen ouer all men as we shewed a little before Fiftly the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen Only Kings saith he as being set ouer the lawes are reserued to the examination of God they are not restrained by the lawes of man From
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
hath chosen the weake things of the world to confound the strong knowing that his Church only stood in need of spirituall armes did so from the beginning furnish her with them that she ouercame all humane power and might so as it might be said truly a Domino factum est illud est mirabile in oculis nostris S. Bernard writeth excellently as hee doth alwaies to Eugenius the Pope This is Peter who was not at any time knowen to walke clad in silkes or adorned with precious stones not couered with gold nor caried on a white steed nor waited on with a guard of souldiers nor compassed with troups of seruants attending on him and yet he thought that without these that wholesome Commandement might be discharged Siamas me pasce oues meas heerein thou hast succeeded not to Peter but to Constantine Therefore although the temporall power whereof we speake may seeme to men to be necessarie for the Church yet to God it seemed neither necessarie nor profitable peraduenture for that reason which the successe of matters and experience it selfe hath taught the posteritie least the Apostles and their successors trusting on humane authoritie should more negligently intend spirituall matters and should chiefly place their hope in armes and in a temporall authoritie and might which they ought to settle in the power of the word of God and in his singular helpe And indeed if a man would take a view in Storie of the state of the Church from the passion of Christ to this day he shall see altogether that she grew very soone and flourished very long vnder Bishops that were content with their owne authoritie that is with spirituall iurisdiction who being the Disciples of the humilitie of Christ iudged that the onely strength to defend the Church did consist in the power of preaching the Gospell and the diligent obseruation of Ecclesiastike Discipline without any mention of temporall power And againe â—â—om the time that certaine Popes went about to annex and adioine a soueraigne temporall gouernment to that spiritual soueraigntie which they had that the Church decased euery day both in the number of beleeuers and behauiour and vertue of gouernours and that same seueritie of the ancient discipline being either remitted or to speake more truely being omitted that many Ministers of the Church discharged their places more slothfully and carelesly then before I omit that if these mens reasons were good it would follow by contraries that the temporall common wealth as they speake hath power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the soueraigne Prince of the Ecclesiastike common wealth because It ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe in order to her end and to haue all power necessary to attaine to her end But the power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the Prince Ecclesiastike is necessary to the temporall end because otherwise wicked Ecclesiasticall Princes may trouble the state and quiet of a temporall common wealth and hinder the end of the ciuill gouernment as indeed diuerse Popes haue been causes of much vnquietnesse Therefore the temporall Common-wealth hath this power The consecution is vtterly false and absurd for a temporall Prince as he is such a one hath no spirituall power and therefore the other is false too to which this by analogie is a consequent But as we vse to speake dare absurdum non est soluere argumentum Therefore I doe answer otherwise to the former part of this second reason That here be not two common weales as he supposeth but one only wherein there be two powers or two Magistrates the Ecclesiastike and the Politike whereof each hath those things which he doth of necessity require to attaine his end the one his spirituall the other his temporall iurisdiction and that neither this iurisdiction is necessary to that power nor that for this Otherwise we must confesse that each power is destitute of her necessary meanes then when they were seuered as sometimes they were which I haue already shewed to be very false as well out of the end of the temporall or ciuill gouernment at it is such as by the state of the Church being established vnder heathen and infidell Princes According to this manner in one and the same ciuill policie I meane in one City or kingdome many magistrates are found inuested with diuerse offices power and authority who gouerne the common weale committed to them in parts euery one of whom receiueth from the King or common wealth necessary power to attaine the end of their charge so as none of them may or dare inuade and arrogate to themselues the iurisdiction and rule of an other If the Consuls want any part of the Tribunes power or the Tribunes any of the Consular iurisdiction it can not be said therefore that both haue need of an others power to compasse their ends for each office according to the ground of the first institution is perfect and furnished with all necessary authority for the execution of his charge Or to bring forth more known examples As in one kingdome and vnder one King there are two great offices whereof the one the Chancellor the other the Constable hath by commission from the King the one hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the speciall charge of the law and iustice the other the managing of armes and the gouernment of all military discipline committed to him and each of them according to the quality and condition of his office is absolute and receiueth from the King all authority necessary for the execution of his charge and the compassing of his end Neither if peraduenture one of them either of negligence or iniury doe hinder the course of the other may he that is so hindred by his proper authority disanull his office or vsurpe his iurisdiction or to be short enforce him to amend his fault but by lawfull meanes granted him by commission from the King but it is requisite that each complaine to the King of others abuse of whom they haue receiued their authority so distinguished in offices and function that he may right him that is wronged and determine by his owne power and iudgement the diuision of the whole cause Now so long as these officers doe agree in the kingdome the one maintaines an others authority and vseth of his owne to supply that which is wanting in the other But if a Country-man to auoid iudgement of law doe depart into the Campe to the Army the aide of the Martiall at armes being required he is wont to be sent backe to the place from whence he fled and of the contrary if one that forsakes his Coloures shall slip into the City the City Magistrate being requested by the Magistrate at armes will by and by see him conueighed to the Campe to be punished for his misdemeanour But where they doe disagree they giue those wounds to the Common-wealth which the Prince onely can helpe and cure because
1. To worship and serue God with true Religion 2. To obey and serue the King Which may and ought to be kept and fulfilled together as the Iesuites themselues affirme And we haue proued at large lib. 3. contra Monarchomachoâ— Therefore in this case the subiects not onely may but also ought to tolerate such a King and in the meane time to continue constantly in the true religion and so to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars and those things which are Gods to God For if as Bellarmine deliuereth it be not lawfull for a Counsell to iudge punish or depose a Pope indeuouring to disturbe or to destroy the Church of God but onely To resist him by not doing that which he commandeth and hindring that he doe not execute his pleasure Why should we not in like manner and with much more reason hould the same iudgement of Kings Seeing that they also by the testimony of the same Author are superiour to the People and haue no iudge in earth and whereas besides many famous Diumes be of opinion that an Occumenicall Counsel hath greater authority ouer the Pope then the people hath ouer the Prince Because the Church is euer gouerned by the spirit of God nor doth any thing rashly And the Pope being often times mooued and tossed with the windes and tempests of sedition enterpriseth many things wickedly cruelly and vniustly without counsell and iudgement But it is a hard matter to tolerate a wicked King and to retaine true Religion will some reply I grant indeed it is so but it is not vnpossible Impossibilitie I must craue pardon to vse the word excuseth from the obseruing of the Commandements but difficultie and hardnesse doth not But that he saith That it is of the diuine law to keepe true faith and religion but of humane law that we haue this or that King This surely is all true but take heed Reader for all this least you be deceiued Bellarmine omitted that which was principall for he ought to haue added But where we once haue this or that King it is of the diuine law that in Ciuill causes we obey him with all honor and reuerence By this adiection which no Catholike can denie that Argument of his is crusht For in the maner propounded by him the law of God and Man doe not concurre nor fall a crosse one of another as hee imagineth which if it should fall out it were reason that the humane should yeeld to the diuine but in truth there concurre two heads of the Diuine law the one to obserue faith and Religion the other To honor the King and to obey him in Ciuill matters Both which may and ought to be fulfilled By giuing to Caesar as is said the things which are Caesars and which are Gods to God as we haue learned out of Bellarmines doctrine in the person of the Pope endeuouring to destroy the Church CHAP. XXIII THere remaines the last Argument which he propounds by way of a subtle and captious question in this manner To conclude why may not a faithfull People be freed from the yoke of an vnfaithfull King and drawing to Infidelitie if a belieuing wife bee free from the Obligation of staying with an vnbeleeuing husband when he will not stay with his Christian wife without inturâ—â— to the faith as he plainly deduceth out of Paul 1. ad Cor. 7. Innoc. 3. Cap. Gaudemus extra de diuortijs for the power of the husband ouer the wise is no lâ—sse then of the King ouer the subiects but indeed somewhat more There is nothing more frequent in the mouthes of all the Monarchomachi then this Argument because they doe easily deceiue very many thereby for it is such a one as nothing doth mooue more vehemently at the first sight and being looked into and vnderstood doth vrge more weakely Therefore I answere to it that these two points be very diuers and vnlike To be deliuered from some mans yoke and To be deliuered from the Obligation of remaining with some man and therefore that they are not rightly compounded and compared together seeing that the husband himselfe to whom the Obligation of remaining with an other is remitted is not by this at all deliuered from her yoke from whom he departs Whereof the Church yeelds vs examples euery day which freeth and absolueth maried Persons for diuers Causes for Bed and Boord as they say that is for conuersation and obligation of Continuance one with the other the Mariage bond neuer the lesse remaining which is a Sacrament of Christ and the Church Wherefore the force of such an Argument drawen from maried persons is nothing vnlesse he proceed from the Matrimoniall yoke to the Regall yoke as if he had said Why may not a faithfull People be freed from the yoke of a King faithlesse and drawing others to Infidelitie if a belieuing wife be free from the yoke of an vnbelieuing husband Now if it please the Reuerend Bellarmine to turne that his Argument into this that it may haue more moment and weight then I will answere the same after an other manner And thus That either he speakes of those maried persons who contracted Mariage when they both were beleeuers and one of them fell into heresie or infidelitie afterwards or of heathen and infidell Couples of whom the one conuerted to the faith the other continuing obstinately in his Pagan superstition If he vnderstand his argument of the former he doth slander his Author Innocentius who speakes neuer a word of such a Matrimonie in the said Cap. Gandemus and besides it should bee false which he obtrudes to vs for an argument that the beleeuing husband is free from the yoke of his vnbeleeuing wife when he will not continue with his Christian wife without iniurie to the faith as the same Innocentius expresly teacheth in cap. Quanto § si verò extra de Diuort But if saith he one of the beleeuing maried persons either fall into Heresie or passe ouer into the error of Gentilitie we doe not thinke that in this case the partie that is left may flie to any second mariage while the other liues although in this case the Contumelie seemeth the greater which is offered to the Creator And againe the same Innocentius in Cap. exparte extra De conuers coningat rescribeth to the same purpose That Matrimonie contracted between lawfull persons and consummate by carnall Copulation In no case can be dissolued although one of the beleeuers between whom this Mariage is ratified should prooue an Heretike and would not continue with the other without Contumslie to the Creator Behold the argument drawen from maried Persons doth not onely not strengthen these mens Opinion but also weakneth and euen oppugneth the same as if a man should in this manner propound the argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of interrogation Why should a beleeuing People be freed from the yoke of a King vnbeleeuing or hereticall endeuouring to draw his
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
Iustinian 82. made in fauour of the Clergie men That Clergie men should first bee conuented before their owne Bishops and afterwards before Ciuill Iudges Therefore the Ciuill Iurisdiction of secular Iudges ouer the Clergie is not weakened by this Canon but rather confirmed Likewise in the Councell of Agatha vnder King Alaricke Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same decreed Can. 32 That no Clergie man should presume to molest any man before a secular Iudge if the Bishop did not giue him licence The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decreâ—um not without very foule dealing both changing the reading and wresting the sense for whereas the Councell had said Clericus ne quenquam praesumat c. that he hath drawne to his owne opinion depraued in this manner Clericum nullus praesumat apud sâ—cularem Iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare that is Let no man presume to molest a Clergie man before a Secular Iudge c. That the prohibition may include the Laâ—cks also that they should not conuent a Clergy man before a Secular Iudge whereas it is made only for Clergie men without any mention at all of the Laitie Besides the second part of that Canon doth manifestly shew that the Councell is thus farre offended with the Laickes which draw the Clergie before Secular Iudgements and propoundeth Ecclesiasticall punishments against them if so bee they shall doe it wrongfully of a purpose to vex and molest them For it followeth in the same Canon But if any Secular man shall attempt wrongfully to torment and vex the Church and Clergie men by moouing of sutes before Secular Iudges and shall be conuicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church and from the Communion of the Catholikes vnlesse hee shall worthily repent but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Councell but also of the Epistle of Pope Marcellinus in eadem Cauâ— quaest Can 3. and for Clericus nullum hath written Clericus nullus that it is no maruell that the Canonists who did only reade the gatherings of Gratianus being deceiued by this false reading haue fallen into this errour which we now repichend But it is a maruell that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus and not rather the true and naturall section of the Authors themselues in his Controucisies Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 28. But in the first Councell of Matiscum which was held vnder King Guâ—tramnus An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner That no Clericke presume in what place soeuer to accuse any other brother of the Clergie or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular Iudge but let all matters of the Clergie be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop or Priest or Arch deacon And in the third Councell of Toletum which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the raigne of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus The continuall misgouernment and accustomed presumption of libertie hath so farre opened the way to vnlawfull attempts that Clerickes leauing their Bishops doe draw their fellow Clerkes to publike iudgements Therefore wee ordaine that the like presumption be attempted no more If any shall presume to doe it let him lose his cause and be banished from the Communion These are the solemne and almost the sole decrees of the Canons whereon they ground their errour who falsely supposed that Councels could or in fact did exempt the Clergie from the power of the Laitie whom the Canons themselues notwithstanding doe so euidentlie conuince that wee neede not bring any thing else besides them for to represse that conceit of theirs And these matters haue beene thus discoursed by mee not with that minde and intent to rippe vp the priuileges of the Clergie or because I either enuie that they enioy them or wish that they were taken from them They who know mee know very well in what account I haue euer had and haue Ecclesiasticall persons I doe honour the Priests of God as my parents and esteeme them worthy all honour but as an humble childe I aduise them that they be not vnthankfull nor disdaine their benefactors from whom they haue receiued so many priuileges They are bound to reuerence and honour their temporall Princes as their Patrons and Protectors and procurers of their libertie and not as many of them at this day vse to denie that they are beholding to Princes for those fauours but to ascribe all their liberties and exemptions and immunities to Pontificiall and Canonicall Constitutions which is the most vnthankfull part which can proceede from vnthankfull mindes For what temporall libertie soeuer they haue they haue receiued the same not from the Popes but from secular Princes nor from the Canons but from the Lawes CHAP. XXXIII I Will say more and I will speake the truth although peraduenture it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seeme hatefull which are neuer so little against their humour and disposition Therefore I will speake and I will speake a great word which peraduenture either no man hitherto hath remembred or if any haue hee hath not at the least put any in minde as hee ought whom it concerned to know the same And that is that the Clergie thorow the whole world of what order or degree soeuer they be are not to this day in any manner exempt and freede from the temporall authoritie of secular Princes in whose Kingdomes and countries they liue but are subiect to them in no other manner then other Citizens in all things which belong to ciuill and temporall administration and iurisdiction and that the same Princes haue power of life and death ouer them as well as ouer their other subiects and therefore that the Prince I speake of him who acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall affaires may either of his clemencie forgiue or punish according to the Law a Clergie man committing any fault whatsoeuer so the fault bee not meerely Ecclesiasticall This although it seeme hard and halfe a paradoxe to them who being possessed with the errour of the contrarie opinion doe thinke that they liue within the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Pope only and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of humane lawes besides notwithstanding I shall bring to passe in few words that they may plainly vnderstand that there is nothing more true then this proposition of mine so as they be onely willing to open their eares to â—eare the true reason thereof with indifferencie The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we haue set downe and prooued before out of the iudgement of the Diuines of the best note and shall presently bee demonstrated by necessary and euident conclusion drawne from thence First of all therefore this is set downe and granted and also confirmed with most firme reasons and testmonies that all both Clerickes and Laickes were in the power and authoritie of Kings and Emperours so
long as the Church serued vnder heathen Princes And this is the ground of our demonstration with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner beene set down and granted that is to say That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest because hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill the Law And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith it is certaine that all Clergie men continued in the same order and ranke as farre as concerned temporall subiection wherein they were before when their Princes liued in their infidelitie because the Law of Christ depriueth no man of his particular interest as hath beene said And in that regard priuileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergie which they should not haue needed at all if the Clergie had not remained and that by absolute right as before vnder the authoritie and iurisdiction of Princes These things are so cleere and plaine and so witnessed and proued by so many testimonies and monuments that it may be thought a needlesse paines to remember them in this place or to adde any thing to them Therefore let vs see that which followeth I meane let vs see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles by a manifest demonstration and necessarie conclusion It is in no place recorded by any Writer that the Princes who haue endowed the Clergie with these priuileges and exemptions did set them so free from themselues that they should not be further subiect vnto them nor acknowledge their Maiestie or obey their Commandement Reade those things which are written of those priuileges you shall not finde the least testimonie of so great immunitie amongst them all They only granted to the Clergie that they should not bee conuented before secular Magistrates but before their proper Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Iudges Now this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authoritie of the Princes themselues or to offer preiudice to their iurisdiction and authority if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergie mens causes in cases which are not meerely spirituall Nay Princes could not nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergie liuing in their kingdomes that libertie and immunitie that they should not bee subiect to them in their temporall authoritie and when they offend bee iudged and punished by them but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principalitie and gouernment For it is a propertie inseparable to Princes to haue power to correct offenders and lawfully to gouerne all the members of the Common-wealth I meane all his Citizens and subiects with punishing and rewarding them And as in a naturall bodie all the members are subiect to the head and are gouerned and directed by it so as it must needs seeme a monstrous bodie where are seene superfluous members and such as haue no dependencie of the head euen so in this politicke bodie it is very necessarie that all the members should bee subiect to the Prince as to the head and bee gouerned by him that is to receiue reward or punishment from him according as each of them deserue in the state But the Clerickes as the aduersaries confesse besides that they are Clerickes are also Citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill Common-wealth which is true and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdome and obtaine the first place Therefore as Citizens and parts of the ciuill Common-wealth they are subiect to the Prince neither can they although the Prince would but be subiect to him in temporalties and otherwise either were he no Prince or they no Citizens Therefore it is a foolish thing to suppose and imagine that a Clergy man being conuented for any cause whatsoeuer so it be not meerely spirituall may auoid the Palace of the soueraigne Prince or of him to whom the Prince vpon certaine knowledge hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof For in that Princes doe verie seldome heare the causes of the Clergie that argueth want not of power but of disposition Hence is it I meane out of this temporall authoritie of secular Princes ouer the Clergie that in our time Charles the V. being Emperour caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colonie to appeare before him to cleere himselfe of the crimes which the Clergie and the Vniuersitie said against him and that in many places the Princes haue reserued to themselues certaine offenses of the Clergie to be specially punished and doe commit the same to the knowledge and iudicature of their officers as are those crimes which are called Priuilegiate in France as of Treason bearing of Armes counterset money peace broken and the like neither are wee to thinke that heereby any iniurie is done to the Clergie or that the Ecclesiasticall libertie is in any manner hindred or diminished Many haue Ecclesiasticall libertie in their mouthes who know not a â—ot what it is We will in another place declare more plainly what it is and in what points it consisteth Seeing these things stand thus euery man I thinke may see that all the immunitie of Clergie men as well for their persons as for their causes and goods haue proceeded from secular Princes but not as some imagine is either due by the Law of God or granted them by the Pope or Canons For that which Bellarmine bringeth both for a supplement and a reason that he might proue how that the Pope and Councels did simply exempt Clerickes from the temporall iurisdiction viz. That the Imperiall Law ought to yeeld to the Canon Law that is not generally true but then only when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticke but the subiection or immunitie of Clergie men in ciuill affaires is not a matter meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but rather ciuill and temporall in which cases the sacred Canons doe not disdaine to come after the ciuill Lawes Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after That the Pope may command the Emperour ouer those things which belong to the authoritie of the Church As if hee should say that the Pope may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church For euen by this we may discerne that this is false that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes and Officers of Princes Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church for that was no lesse before but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring Hence arose that question whether it were lawfull for Princes euery one within his territories without any iniurie to the church in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours as concerning temporall matters Ergo hee had no temporall authority ouer them that hee might iudge them in temporalties The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour a superiour I meane in that very point whereof the iudgement is made For as we haue often said Par in parem non habet imperium And in nature it cannot be that one and the same person should be both inferiour superiour in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same matter no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries when as they affirme and clearely confirme by reasons That the exception vnlesse you wil say exemption of Cleriques in ciuill causes aswell concerning their persons as Gods was brought or by the law of man For as Augustine witnesseth humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes as we shewed in the last Chapter before And that euen of their meere and free bounty for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church to grant the Clergy those priuiledges seeing it is not found to be expressed prouided by no law of God And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right interest as thēselus confesse we haue often signified And therfore as their owne learning carieth Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties By all this discourse it followeth that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges of exemptions and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope and other Clergie persons Therefore that which might be done let vs suppose it was done that is that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie or priuiledge doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince as his fellow Bishops and Brethren in France Spaine and Britanie and in other kingdomes doe Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties to whome hee is temporally subiect Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours then he had before through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties But if any bee so fond perhaps to say that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church viz. to iudge and depose euill princes but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered that he could not exercise it so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties But now after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes made himselfe a temporall princes there is nothing to hinder but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation I must answere him nothing else but that the things he speaketh are not onely false but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnpossible setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse and which is most true that is to say that the Popes before such time as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction were subiect to them both de iure and de facto For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power for that it is not competent but by right of superiority Now it implieth a contradiction that the Pope was by right superiour and by right inferiour at the same time in the same kind of authority in respect of one and the same and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature and the most holy rule of life they must needes bee in a great error who affirme that this soueraigne authority wherof we speake was by Christ conferred on Peter and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons and full weake patched vp together of similitudes comparisons allegories and such like stuffe as you may see by that which wee haue refuted All which are to be reiected and little esteemed when as by the position and granting of them some absurditie doth follow as in this point or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines The third argument saith he is this A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe as is conuenient for them Ergo the Pope may and ought command Christians those things and inforce them to these things to which euery one of them in his condition is bound that is constraine euery one to serue God in that manner wherein they ought according to their state and condition But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it and vnlesse they doe it to enforce them by excommunication and other conuenient meanes Surely I see not what is contained in this argument which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode Now the Popes reuenewes although they be great would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion for hee saith to enforce by Excommunication and other conuenient meanes meaning Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke not a temporall Shepheard but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule