of any lay-mans temporall goods and patrimonie for any cause whatsoeuer yea for heresie it selfe who is not temporally a vassall and subiect to his Holinesse And if his spirituall authoritie giuen him by our Sauiour can worke no such effect much lesse his temporall which was neuer granted by Christ by whom he ought to haue whatsoeuer he hath for the good gouernment of his Church but by holy secular Princes whereof Cardinall Allen writeth thus The chiefe Bishops of Christs Church In his answer to the Eng. iust pag. 144. our supreme Pastors in earth by Gods prouidence and by the graunts of our first most Christian Emperours and Kings and by the humble and zealous deuotion of the faithfull Princes and people afterwards haue their temporall states dominions and patrimonies whereby they most iustly hold and possesse the same and are thereby lawfull Princes temporall and may most rightfully by their soueraigntie make warres in their owne and other mens iust quarell as occasion shall vrge them thereunto This he The like in effect writeth the most excellent lawyer D. Barclai Lib. de potestate Papae ◠15. that the Pope himselfe is no otherwise excluded from temporall subiection to secular Princes then that by the benefite or liberalitie of Kings he was made a King forsooth a politicall Prince acknowledging none for his superiour in temporals And the same doth the most earnest maintainer of the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction confesse whom many thinke to be Cardinall Bellarmine Sub nomine Francisci Romuli pag. 114. in his answer to the principall chapters of an Apologie c. Generalis inquit verissima est illa sententia debere omnes omnino superiori potestati obtemperare Sed quia c. It is a generall and most true sentence that all ought to obey higher power but because power is of two sorts spirituall and temporall ecclesiasticall and politicall whereof the one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporall things and Kings vnto Bishops in spirituals as copiously do dispute Gelasius the first Gelasius Nicolaus in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael But because the Bishop of Rome is not only the chiefe Ecclesiastical Prince to whom all Christians by the law of God are subiect but is also in his owne Prouinces a temporall Prince neither doth he acknowledge any superiour in temporals as nor other absolute and soueraigne Princes do in their kingdoms and dominions thence it proceedeth that he hath no power aboue him in earth Not then because he is chiefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians therefore he is deliuered from temporall subiection but because he enioyeth a temporall principalitie subiect to none In those things therefore which appertaine to the good of the common-wealth and ciuill societie and are not repugnant to the diuine ordinance Clerkes are no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne temporall Prince then other citizens or subiects as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe verie notably sheweth Quia clerici In lib. de Clericis c. 28. praeterquā quod clerici sunt sunt etiā ciues partes quaedam Reipub. politicae Non sunt exempti clerici vllo modo inquit ab obligatione legum ciuilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio clericali That clergie men besides that they are clergie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the politicall commonwealth Clerkes saith he are not exempted by any meanes from the bond of the ciuill lawes which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or their clericall office By this you may see that the Pope hath his temporalities and temporall power not from Christ but from Constantine and other Christian Princes and people and was euer subiect to ciuill gouernment of Emperours till such time as by their graunts he was made a King and temporall Prince and so had no superiour and that Clerks as parts of the political cōmonwealth are bound to obey al iust lawes of the same cōmonwealth no lesse then the Laitie but more of this in another place as occasion shall serue Now to come somewhat nearer the question that I promised and you desire to be resolued on as touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes of their temporall dominions First you are to note that of this matter there are two opinions much different the one from the other one of the Canonists another of Diuines The Canonists hold it for true doctrine to be maintained Tho. Bozius Carerius D. Marta and others that all power whatsoeuer is in this world either temporall and ciuill or spirituall and ecclesiasticall was giuen directly by Christ to Peter and his successors and what power any Kings or Princes in the whole world either Christians or Infidels haue it all dependeth of the Pope and is deriued from him to them as touching the temporall execution so that as Lord of the world he may depose Princes take away their kingdomes and principalities and giue or dispose them to whom he list though no man know the cause why he doth so if he shall iudge there is sufficient cause to do it If this were true doctrine then woe to all Princes that should at any time yea but breake amitie and friendship with him that sitteth in Peters seate what securitie could they haue of their estates Then might they expect of Princes and rulers to be made priuate men and subiects then may it be granted that our Soueraigne were not vnlike to be depriued of his temporals his subiects to be discharged of their obedience and his territories giuen in prey to his enemies But this opinion is held to be most false by many Diuines because it cannot be proued either by authoritie of Scripture or by tradition of the Apostles or practise of the ancient Church or by the doctrine and testimonies of the ancient Fathers Howbeit Bozius a late writer most stoutly defendeth the same Lib. 2. cap. 11 and greatly blameth many excellent Diuines among whom is renowmed Cardinall Bellarmine and calleth them new diuines saying moreouer that they teach most manifestly false doctrine Lib. 5. cap. vlt. and repugnant to all truth because they say that Christ as man was neuer a temporall king nor had any temporall dominion on earth nor did exercise or practise any regall power for by these assertions the principall foundations of Bozius friuolous arguments are ouerthrowne which as most true they confirme by the testimony of our Sauiour himselfe Math. 8. Luc. 9. Foxes saith he haue holes and the foules of the aire nests but the Sonne of man hath not where to put his head If Christ Iesus as he was the son of mā had not so much in this world as a cottage to rest himself in where I pray you is his kingdome where is his temporall dominion who can conceiue that one can be king and Lord who hath no kingdome or Lordship in the vniuersall
his spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord. 1. Cor. 5. Disciplina est enim excommunicatio non eradicatio Now what can here be gathered by the definition end effects or substance of this spirituall censure for deposing Kings and disposing of temporals Marry sir that subiects are bound obeying the chiefe Pastors censure to shun their Prince excommunicated performing no dutie vnto him nor in any sort to communicate with him for an excommunicate person by name ought of all to be auoided to whom os orare vale communio mensa negatur And then when all forsake him is he not in effect deposed Yes truly when all his subiects do forsake him and he left alone Sed quando haec eruâ—â— Is a King more like to be forsaken then a paterfamilias a priuate man Almaine saith indeede Alm. de pot Eccl. laicâ— q. 1. cap. 9. that the Pope may forbid the subiects of a Prince vnder paine of excommunication to performe any dutie vnto him whereby in effect he loseth his kingdome when no man doth regard him yet cannot depose him though he abuse his authoritie to the destruction of the Christian faith But if a generall defection of subiects follow not if according to their dutie they adhere faithfully vnto him without regard to his censure how then What his Holinesse may do in this case of excommunication with absolute Princes being sheepe of Christs fold to be directed and corrected with that spirituall rod when there is hope of amendment as well as priuate men I will not dispute but experience of former ages teacheth it is not expedient See S. Aug. lib 3. c. 2. cont ep Parm. c. 26. and that such practise breedeth oft schismes reuolts troubles and tendeth rather to destruction of many then to edification of any when as S. Paul professeth power to be giuen to the Church to edifie not to destroy And when this power is exercised in destructionem it is not that power which cometh from God but impotencie and defect This we may be said to do that we may lawfully do Which power Doctor Sanders calleth the sword of the Church and sheweth how it should be vsed Sand. de clau Dauid c. 9. Gladius Ecclesiae in aedificationem datus est c. The sword of the Church is giuen to edification not to destruction to conferre life not to inferre death for defence of the flocke not for hurt of the sheepe to driue away the Wolfe not to deuoure the lambe This sword being spirituall and is to worke vpon soules not bodies or goods of any may be drawne foorth I must coÌ„fesse by the supreme Pastor against exorbitant Princes whose superior he ought to be acknowledged but onely in spirituals when there is hope to saue not to destroy to do good no harme and rather to make a wolfe a lambe then cause a lambe to become a wolfe ready to deuoure the flocke as sometimes such censures haue done which lameÌ„table experience on the persons of many Princes can testifie whereupon they proceeded further haply in rigor with their subiects then otherwise they would haue done and not so much for excommunication onely as for the clauses of depriuation deposition and absolution of subiects from their dutifull obedience which are farre from the nature and substance of a spirituall censure and exceedeth the limited of that power as very learned Catholike Authors go about to proue Excommunicatio saith Ludouicus Richeom non nisi excommunicatum facere potest Richeom in apolog eáque fulminatur in Principes c. Excommunication cannot cause one to be but excommunicated and it is thundred out against Princes not that they may become tyrants nor remoued from their possessions nor to slacken the raines vnto subiects or that they may be freed from their sworne fidelitie To this agreeth Medina Excommunicato non est priuatio alicuius boni proprij Medina in 1.2 q. 96. ar 4. citans Sotum quod transgressor legis prius possederat sed est priuatio bonorum communium c. Excommunication is not a taking away of any proper good which the transgressor of the law before had possessed but it is a depriuing of the common goods which he was to receiue of the Church as spirituall communion and receiuing sacraments By which doctrine is plaine that none poore or rich subiect or Prince may by vertue of excommunication meerely be dispossessed of any temporall goods whatsoeuer If they could then woe to all Christians in this respect that liue in such times as Bishops and Popes are not saints Any man excommunicated vpon repeÌ„tance may returne to grace be receiued of the Church and may recouer those spirituall goods he had lost as prayers suffrages and sacraments of the Church c. But if temporals especially kingdomes be once lost and confiscate what hope of recouery Wil it not be too late to cry Peccaui So then that punishment which God hath ordained for the good of soules would be most like to turne to the destruction of bodies soules and goods for euer if excommunication could worke such effect and were not as it ought to be medicinalis but exitialis which is not to be granted Moreouer if ye looke backe to ancient Canons of generall Councels yea to the Canons of the Apostles you shall see for the same or like crimes punishments to be inflicted on offendors but deposition inflicted on Clercks and on Laicks excommunication or depriuing onely of sacraments and communion making this distinction Si Clericus sit deponitor si Laicus à communione eijcitor Insinuating thereby as may seeme that the Church hath superioritie directly ouer Clerks to deposition or degradation of persons not so ouer the persons of Laicks further then to the censure of excommunication and therefore not ouer kingdomes and Kings who acknowledge no superiour on earth in temporals But I pray you if the Popes Holines vpon cause of heresie do excommunicate a Prince or priuate man and all that shall communicate with him or obey him is he not then to be auoided and forsaken of his subiects and inferiours or others whosoeuer He that denieth this seemeth to deny the Popes spirituall authority of binding that of S. Paul Haereticum hominem post primam secundam correptionem denita Tit. 3. A man that is an hereticke after the first and second admonition auoide What is this to our Oath Is there any such clause for heresie in it Are we to adde vnto it by our idle inuentions or are we vrged to take it otherwise then the words import simply as they lye framed by act of Parliament But these and such like fond verball obiections are the cauilling shifts of such as know not how to giue better answers to the substantiall points of the Oath and perswade some to the losse of their liues and others of their lands and goods to their vtter ruine if iustice without mercy be executed that it cannot be
Oath as In any case whatsoeuer Neither is the Popes spirituall authoritie limited or once touched therein as by his Maiesties intention sufficiently made knowne vnto vs doth manifestly appeare And Caietan teacheth that in such like case if the intention of the man that commandeth may be knowne Caietan ver praecepti trangressio it is inough because the force of the precept dependeth of the intention of him that commandeth Now to end this matter I wish you to note the fraude of that Catholicke letter writer for to haue set downe in plaine termes that his Holinesse may depose his Maiestie dispose his kingdomes to whom he list licence subiects to raise tumults take armes against him or murther him and such like he knew would sound to good subiects most odious therefore he thought it to be a point of policie not to deale plainely but leaue the Reader perplexed with this obscuritie What his Holinesse cannot do towards his Maiestie in any case whatsoeuer Whose bare assertion without proofe or truth can in reason conuince none but such as want their common sense Now that it hath bene proued nothing to be contained in the Oath against the law of God nor decrees of any generall Councell and that his Maiestie in making this law and requiting of his subiects the performance thereof according to his intention which is but iust and good hath not gone beyond his bounds will any yet be so wilfully blind as not to see that by the immaculate law of God he is bound in conscience to render to Caesar that is Caesars to be obedient to higher powers as well the ciuill in temporals as the Ecclesiasticall power in spirituals Saint Peter prince of the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Christians of the primitiue Church that they should submit themselues and be obedient to secular Princes and Magistrates though they were heathens 1. Pet. 2. Subiecti igitur estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regiquasi praecellenti siue Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis c. Be subiect therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling or to rulers as sent by him to the reuenge of malefactors but to the praise of the good for so is the will of God that doing wel you may make the ignorance of vnwise men to be dum And a little after exhorting thē to feare God his next lesson is to honor the King Deum timete Regem honorificate How I pray you is a King honoured when his iust precept is neglected or contemned Some haply without consideration both ignorantly vnwisely wil grant that Catholick kings are to be honoured and obeyed but doubt may be made of such as by the Church are reputed or rather condemned heretikes and aduersaries to the Catholicke faith I aske these if there be any so simple whether Emperours Kings and Princes to whom the Apostles preached this subiection and obedience were not aduersaries yea and persecutors of the Catholicke faith and continued such the space of more then three hundred yeares howbeit the Christians of those dayes instructed both by the doctrine and example of the Apostles in all dutifull humilitie did not giue freely but rendred to Caesar his due how peruerse soeuer their Gouernours were Which lesson Saint Peter their chiefe Pastor immediatly after in the same chapter had taught them Serui subditi estote in omni timore dominis non tantum bonis modestis sedetiam dyscolis Seruants be subiect in all feare to your maisters not onely to the good and modest but also to the wayward Ephes 6. Colos 3. This dutifull subiection likewise teacheth Saint Paul Serui obedite Dominis carnalibus cum timore tremore in simplicitate cordis vestri sicut Christo Seruants be obedient to your Lords according to the flesh with feare and trembling in the simplicitie of your heart as to Christ not seruing to the eye as it were pleasing men but as the seruants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart with a good will seruing as to our Lord and not to men If seruants then commanded by the Apostle were bound to serue and obey their temporall Lords and maisters with such care and diligence were they neuer so froward and wicked Pagans for such no doubt many Christians did serue who by their examples threats or enticements might hazard to withdraw them from the true worship of God are not subjects now by the same law as well bound to be obedient to lawfull Kings and Princes be they neuer so wicked in manners or opposite to faith and Christian religion as heretikes and apostates are Were they not Pagan Princes and Potestates whom Saint Paul willed Titus to admonish Christians to obey at a word Admone illos saith he Principibus Potestatibus subditos esse dicto obedire Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and Potestates to obey at a word S. Ambrose Vpon which place Saint Ambrose Admonish as if he should say Although thou hast spirituall gouernment ouer spirituall matters yet admonish them to whom thou preachest to be subiect to Kings and Princes because Christian religion depriueth none of his right The same holy Father and also Saint Augustine write of the prompt obedience of Christians to Iulian the Apostata which may be a verie good example for Catholickes of these latter times to shew like obedience if they light on like Princes saying Iulianus extitit infidelis Imperator Aug. in Psal 124. Super illud Non relinquet Domi nus virgam Habetur 11. q. 3. c. Iulian. nonne extitit Apostata iniquus idololatra c. Iulian was an infidell Emperour was he not an Apostata wicked an idolater Christian souldiers serued an infidell Emperour When they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged not but him that was in heauen When he willed them to worship Idols to sacrifise they preferred God before him But when he said Bring foorth your armie go against that people they obeyed incontinently The distinguished the eternall Lord from a temporall Lord and yet for the eternall Lord they were subiect also to the temporall Lord. Hereby is euident that Iulian had right to command Christian souldiers in temporals and they shewed all prompt obedience knowing that their religion taught no iniustice that notwithstanding his Apostacie he being lawfully called to the Empire they were not nor could be absolued of their loyaltie and ciuill obedience towards him Was so notorious an Apostata to be of dutie obeyed and not a king who cannot be iudged an hereticke because he doth not pertinaciter defend any opinion against the Church of Christ but royally promiseth to forsake the religion he professeth if any point or head thereof belonging to faith can be proued not to be ancient catholicke and Apostolicke Here Cardinall Bellarmine will answer That the Church in her nouitie or beginning wanted forces forsooth after three yea foure hundred
the Iewes at the same time liued whosoeuer without sufficient authority were spied so much as to haue a sword about him to murther any mā with was in a manner in as euill a case as he that had murthered one indeed If Peter exercising a materiall sword in defence of Christ and at such time as the vse thereof might seeme to him very necessary was sharply reprehended for that he had no lawfull authoritie in such wise to fight for him is it not a sufficient document for his successours not to vse violence on secular Princes by exercising the materiall sword no not in ordine ad spiritualia in defence of Christs spouse the Church for that she hath no warrant so to do Our Sauiour a little before his passion seeing his Apostles to contend about superiority teaching them their duties and in them all their successours and the different gouernment betweene them and secular Princes said Luc. 22. Reges gentium dominātur eorum qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur vos autem non sic c. The Kings of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that haue power vpon them are called beneficials But you not so but he that is the greater among you let him become as the yonger c. Vpon which place Origen S. Hierome Chrysostome and Basil with one assent vnderstand that secular Princes are not content onely to haue subiects but also by ouerruling they vse thē but you not so to wit you my Apostles and successours after me for it is your part to serue to minister and to feede by word and example c. And in Saint Matthewes Gospell Math. 20. our Sauiour said vnto two of his disciples Iames and Iohn You know that the Princes of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that are the greater exercise power against them It shall not be so among you but whosoeuer will be the greater among you let him be your minister c. Is it not plaine tnat our Lord Iesus though he teach not paritie with Puritans nor forbiddeth superiority among Christians neither Ecclesiasticall nor temporall yet he will not that his Apostles nor their successors Bishops and Priests being called to the state of a celestiall kingdome that differeth from the conditiō of a temporall kingdome should rule like vnto Kings and secular Princes who cary a materiall sword ad vindictam malefactorum for reuenge of malefactors and some now and then imperiously gouerne their subiects with pride tyranny contempt of inferiours and for their owne lucre more then the vtility of their subiects Which kind of gouernement is forbidden both by the doctrine and example of our Sauiour 1. Pet. 5. Presbyteros Compresbyter so readeth and expoundeth S. Hierome ep 85. So translate Erasmus and Beza and humility commended to all the Cleargie yea to Peter himselfe who cōformably to this likwise instructed such as at any time to the worlds end should beare rule in Gods Church saying Seniores igitur qui sunt inter vos obsecro ego consenior c. The seniors therefore that are among you I beseech my selfe a consenior with them c or Priests my selfe a fellow Priests feede the flocke of God which is among you prouiding not by cōstraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucre sake but voluntarily neque vt dominātes neither as ouerruling the Clergie but made examples of the flocke from the heart Whereby appeareth that all violence coaction and compulsion by exercising the temporall sword which is the sword of Kings is wholly forbidden all Ecclesiasticall persons To me it seemeth not without a mysterie that onely Peter among the rest of the Apostles should not strike any in all that hellish troupe coming in fury to lay violent hands on their Lord no not the traytor Iudas that with a kisse betraied him the ringleader of the rest and so better deserued to haue had his head cut off but onely him whose name is so precisely recorded by the Euāgelist to be Malchus and that he should be checked and reproued by our Sauiour Iohan. c. 18. of whom haply he expected to be commended for his zeale But though Peter might pretend iust cause to be moued to strike as he did yet was his fact reprehensible in two respects First for that asking Christ the question whether he and his fellow for no moe of the eleuen had swords about them should strike or no stroke without his grant yea against his will Secondly because his fact had rather a shew of reuenge then of defence For what might he think to do with 2. swords against so many what possibility to preuaile And as may appeare likwise by Christs words vnto him Math. 26. Returne thy sword into his place for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword And in S. Iohns Gospell Iohan. 18. Put vp thy sword into the scabbard the chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it By all which is cleare that Peter was iustly reprehended for striking without commission the high Priests seruant Malchus which name in Hebrew or Malcuth signifieth Rex or Regnum doubtles in my iudgemēt not without a great mystery the admirable prouidence of God thereby haply instructing posterity that no lesse reprehensible is it in Peters successours as they are Peters successors to dethrone Kings and depriue them of their kingdomes which cannot be done without drawing forth and striking with the materiall sword then it was in Peter himselfe for cutting off Malchus eare And that they ought not to vse such kind of violence on the persons of Kings no nor inferiors to Kings hauing no commission from Christ to punish corporally no more then Peter had against Malchus but onely spiritually Now to returne to the authoritie or power meant by S. Paul Rom. 13. Omnis anima It is most plaine that the Apostle in that chapter recommended to Christians their dutiful obedience to secular Potestates because hauing preached obedience to spirituall Pastors some newly conuerted thought themselues being Christians See S. Chrysost in c. 13. ho. 23. Ro. to be freed by Christ from al former subiection now not bound to obey either Emperour King or any temporall Lord for that they were heathens and persecutors of the Apostles and Christs religion For which cause and for that the Apostles generally were slandered and said to be seditious and vntruly charged of their aduersaries that they withdrew men from order and obedience to ciuill lawes and officers Saint Paul here as S. Peter doth in his first Epistles to stop the mouth of such flanderous tongues cleareth himselfe and expresly chargeth euery man and woman to be subiect to their temporall Princes and superiors howbeit in such matters as they may lawfully command and in things wherein they are superiors Conformable to his doctrine was likewise his example and of the rest of the Apostles who in all matters not repugnant to
world We know well that as he is the Sonne of God he is the King of glory King of kings Lord of heauen and earth and of all things Psal 23. Domini enim est terra plenitudo eius and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for euer but what is this to a temporall kingdome what is this to the imperiall dignitie of secular maiestie Therefore I meane not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists which hath bene most learnedly confuted by Cardinall Bellarmine Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. 3 but to let it passe as most absurd that cannot be proued by any sound reason nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures Fathers or Councels but maintained by captious fallacies vnapt similitudes and corrupt interpretations An other opinion there is of Diuines who dislike and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positiōs but yet so as they vphold and labour to maintain the Popes temporall power though in other sort then the former that is De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6. indirectly or casually and by consequence This then they write and namely Cardinall Bellarmine Asserimus Pontificem vt Pontificem et si non habeat vllam merè temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum We affirme that the Pope as Pope although he hath not any meerly temporal power yet in order to the spiritual good he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tēpotall goods of all Christians And againe in the same chapter Quantum ad personas non potest Papa vt Papa ordinariè temporales Principes deponere etiam iusta decausa eo modo quo deponit Episcopos id est tanquam ordinarius iudex c. As touching the persons the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporall Princes yea for a iust cause after that sort as he deposeth Bishops that is as an ordinary iudge yet he may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to an other as the chiefe spirituall Prince if that be necessarie to the health or sauing of soules And in the same booke the first chapter where he putteth downe the Catholicke opinion as he saith he altereth it somewhat in this manner Pontificem vt Pontificem c. That the Pope as Pope Lib. 5. cap. 1. hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power but only spirituall yet by reason of the spirituall he hath at least indirectly a certaine power that chiefe or highest in tēporals You haue here set downe by Cardinall Bellarmine the opinion of Diuines that the Pope as Pope or chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power to depose Christian Princes but that indirectly I wot not how he may depose them and dispose of their temporals and so in effect and after a sort agreeeth with the Canonists that indeed such power is rightly in him only he differeth about the manner with a restraint from infidels to Christian Princes But I trust as he in improuing the Canonists assertiō of direct power ouer al the world driueth them to Scriptures or tradition of the Apostles so likewise we may require that he proue his indirect power by one of these two wayes If he cannot as most certainely he cannot then why should men giue more credite to him then to the other they being as Catholike and haply no lesse learned then he Why should his opinion be thought more true then the former To disproue the Canonists thus he writeth Ex Scriptur is nihil habemus Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3. nisi datas Pontifici claues regni coelorum declauibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit Traditionem Apostolicam nullam aduersary proferunt Out of Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth no mention is made at all Apostolical tradition our aduersaries produce none Hereby it seemeth the Cardinall goeth about to proue against his aduersaries that because the keyes of the kingdome of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be giuen to Peter and his sucsessors therefore the Pope hath not any direct authoritie to depose the Princes of the world nor dispose of their temporals insinuating that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised and granted to Peter or to the Church in the person of Peter can worke no such effect nor were granted to depriue Christian Princes or others of their scepters and regall dignities but onely by censures and spirituall authority to exclude vnworthy sinners from eternall felicitie and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdome of heauen If this argument be good against the Canonists then why is it not also good against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe when as he can no more produce Apostolicall tradition to confirme his indirect authoritie then the other their direct And of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth required for deposing Princes and disposing of temporals no mention is made in all the Scriptures no not for his indirect or casuall authoritie Consider besides I pray you for it is worth the noting how obscurely and ambiguously he writeth of the Popes power to depose thereby haply intending to seeke some starting hole of equiuocation if occasion serue and meane while leaue his reader doubtfull and still to seeke of his meaning which in my simple Judgement is such as the iudicious wit can hardly conceiue nor tell what he would say As for example that the chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not any power meerly temporall c. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily note depose c. no not for a iust cause mary as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince he may depose and dispose c. Helpe me good Reader to vnderstand this riddle how these two differ in some essentiall point Pope and chiefe spirituall Prince I must confesse that I vnderstand not how he is the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope that is the Father of Fathers or chiefe Pastor of soules in the Church of God It is wel knowne that this title Pope or Papa in Latin hath bene attributed to many ancient Patriarchs and Bishops as well as to the Bishop of Rome though principally to him and now is appropriated to him alone and for nought else but for being Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Princes of the Church and for that cause only not for being a temporal Prince Peters successor hath his denomination Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth saying D. Kellisons Reply to M. Sutel ca. 1. f. 9. Bern. lib. 2. de consid I grant with S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope hath no temporall iurisdiction his power as he is Pope being onely spirituall If then it be so that the Pope as Pope
de Ro. Pont. c. 3. it a quoque non esse idem Pontificatum Imperium nec vnum ab alio absolute pendere Note that euen as the Sunne and Moone are not one and the same planet and as the Sunne did not institute or appoint the Moone but God so likewise the Papacy and Impery are not one and the same nor the one do absolutely depend of the other By these two great lights Sun and Moone Cap. Solitae de maiorit obedien Pope Inocentius interpreteth to be meant two dignities which are Pontificall authority and Regall power Moreouer this distinction of these two great powers that ancient and renowmed Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to Constantius the Arrian Emperour most manifestly sheweth L. 2. de liber Christ c. 2. whose sentence is related in an Epistle of holy Athanasius in this manner Tibi Deus imperium commisit Atha ep ad solit vitam agentes nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit quemadmodū c. To you God hath committed the Empire to vs he hath deliuered those things which belong to the Church and euen as he that with malignant eyes carpeth your Empire contradicteth the ordinance of God so do you also beware lest if you draw to you such things as belong to the Church you be made guiltie of a great crime Giue it is written Math. 22. Mar. 12. to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those which belong to God Therefore neither is it lawfull for vs in earth to hold the Empire nor you ô Emperour haue power ouer incense and sacred things Thus this learned Bishop and renowmed in the first Councell of Nice In cap. Inquisitioni de sen excom Hereupon Innocentius the third and Panormitan conclude that laickes are not bound to obey the Pope in those things that are not spirituall or which concerne not the soule as they speake but onely in those places which are subiect to his temporall iurisdiction That these two powers are independent of each other and the temporall not subordinate to the spirituall but since the comming of Christ separate and so distinguished by their proper acts offices and dignities that the one may not vsurpe the right and power of the other without iniurie to each other Pope Nicolas the first plainly witnesseth in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour as appeareth also in the Canon law Can cum ad verum ventū est dist 96. Barcl de potest Pap. c. 13. L. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. which you may reade in D. Barclai of worthie memorie in case you can get it Which place I may not pretermit to note vnto you as it is set downe in Cardinall Bellarmine Idem mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus sic actibus proprijs dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit c. The same Mediator of God and men the man Christ Iesus hath so seuered the offices of both powers by proper acts and distinct dignities that both Christan Emperours for eternall life should haue neede of the chiefe Bishops and the chiefe Bishops for the course of temporall things onely should vse Imperiall lawes Here saith the Cardinall the Pope speaketh not of the onely execution but of power and dignitie c. For whatsoeuer Emperours haue Pope Nicholas saith they haue it from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe chiefe King and Emperour or else he cannot If he can then is he greater then Christ if he cannot then hath he not in deed Regall power This he Who in the same chapter bringeth Pope Gelasius to this purpose Duo sunt inquit Imperator Auguste Gelas ep ad Anast Imp. Decret dist 96. Can. Duo sunt quibus principaliter mundus hicregitur Authoritas sacra Pontificum Regalis potestas c. There are two things O noble Emperour whereby principally this world is gouerned the sacred authoritie of Bishops and Regall power c. Where it is to be noted saith Bellarmine that Gelasius speaketh not onely of the excution but of the verie power and authoritie lest our aduersaries say as they are accustomed that the Pope hath indeed both powers but committeth the execution to others That the ends likewise of these two powers are different the Cardinall confesseth saying that the politicall hath for her end temporall peace and the Ecclesiasticall eternall saluation And hereto agreeeth Nauarre in Relect. cap. Nouit do iudic nu 90. Nauar. By this now is apparent that these two powers their ends offices and dignities are distinct and separate from each other If then the one command any thing which appertaineth not to his power or wherein he is not superiour it is a generall rule as Cardinall Tolet noteth that such a one is not of dutie to be obeyed Tolet. de 7. peccatis mort c. 15. Vnicuique superiori saith he obediendum est ex obligatione in his tantum in quibus est superior And the inferior dischargeth well his dutie if he promptly obey in those things wherein he is inferior as a seruant in seruilibus such as appertaine to a seruant and for this citeth Pope Innocentius cap. Inquisitioni de sent excom Whereupon if the Pope should in virtute obedientiae command any man to giue away his vineyard or house or sell his patrimonie as Bellocchio cupbearer to Sixtus 5. would haue had the Pope by his Breue to command a subiect of his to do because the poore mans land lay commodiously for him and pleased him Naboths case which his Holinesse refused to do answering he could not he might do no mā wrōg or a cleargie man to resigne his benefice with cure to some vnworthy person which is against a diuine precept he is not to be obeyed as the same author affirmeth in the chapter aforesaid And alledgeth Panorm in cap. Inquisitioni de sent excom and Io. Andr. c. Cum à Deo de rescript Much lesse is any n = a Cap. litteras de rest spoliat superior yea the Pope himselfe to be obeyed according to n = b Cap. Inquisit c. Panormitan commanding any sinne though but n = c 11. q. 3. can Quid ergo veniall And n = d Verbo obedientia nu 5. Syluester Intellige etiam si Papa credit mādatum iustum tamen subdito constat illud in se continere peccatum Vnderstand although the Pope beleeueth his mandateto be iust but yet the subiect knoweth it contains a sin de restit spol lit Here may be noted that the Pope may hold one opinion and an inferiour may hold the contrarie and more true without sinne Yea and a Bishop in case the Pope should command him to be absent from his residence without some necessitie he is not bound to obey because saith Tolet cum absque causa rationabili aliquid praecipitur Instruct sacer l. 5. c. 4. nu 3. non debemus audire When any thing is