we are to thinke that there is the same reason of the Church to be established and which is established already that the Uine ought â—â—t to be planted and watered before it be pruned but that then that power was giuen to the Church when that of the Prophet was fulfilled Kings shall be thy Nurâ—es with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee shall lickâ— the dust of 〈…〉 that surely is such a toâ— as I do thinke not worth the answering seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knowes what he saith For â—hat were not the rotten members of the Church wont to be cut off euen from her infancie first beginning doth he not know that that spirituall incision which is proper to the Church begaÌ„ euen with the Church her self What say you to Ananias what to the Corinthian were they not cut off by the church If he know not this he is to be thought an ill Diuine a worse Vine-dresser seeing he euen in the very first planting shreds off whatsoeuer is super fluous and vnprofitable in the vine and suffers not the rotten and faultie branches to sticke out of the ground afterwards when it is a litle growenvp he lops and cuts it lest it should be ouercharged with vnprofitable and vnfruitfull stems But if he meane corporall incision he ought to know that the Church hath no skill of bloud I meane that she doth not execute death vpon any vnlesse peraduenture it falles out by miracle as in the person of Ananias and Saphâ—ra But what doth he thinke that the Church was not perfectly established in the times of Ambrose Hierome and Austine Or that it was not sufficiently planted watred that at that time it might be conueniently shred Surely S. Austine in one place affirmes that very few in his time were found that thought euill of Christ. Why then did the Church tolerate Ualens Ualentinianus Heraclitus and others for from Constantine the Great that Prophecie which he alleadgeth was fulfilled But it was not yet time to cut the Lords vineyard A worthy reason sure and to be ranked amongst that followes fooleries which in another place we set downe by themselues Now let vs goe to the maintainers of the indirect power CHAP. XII THese mens opinion I haue set downe aboue in the first and fift chapters which is That the Pope by reason of his spirituall Monarchie hath temporall power indirectly and that soueraigne to dispose of the temporalties of all christians and that he may change kingdomes and take them from one to giue them to another if it be necessary for the health of soules Against which opinion there are so many things that I hould it to be vtterly improbable if not incredible For first of all what is more contrary to it then that the whole christian antiquity euer iudged that Kings are lesse then God only that they haue God only for their iudge that they are subiect to no lawes of man and can be punished or coerced with no temporall punishments and therefore that which the authors of the law said Princeps 〈…〉 est that the Grecians cheefly vnderstand of penall lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Prince offending is not punished None of these things can stand with the opinion of the aduersaries For if it be true that the Pope may dispose of kingdomes and states of secular Princes and take from them their scepters and all manner of dignity it followeth necessarily that the Pope is superior and euen Iudge ouer Kings in temporall matters and besides that all Kings may be subiect to temporall punishments which is directly opposite as may be to the former opinion of the ancient Fathers The necessity of the consequution is plaine by this for that he who iudgeth an other lawfully must of necessity be superior ouer him whom he iudgeth For an equall hath not authority ouer an equall much lesse an inferior ouer a superior and also because the depriuation of a Kingdome euen as the publication of goods is to be reckned amongst temporall punishments and those very greeuous too What I pray you that the Bishops themselues confesse that Kings haue no superior in temporalities They haue and they haue not cannot be both true Therefore it is false that Kings haue no superiour in temporalities if an other may by law take their temporalities from them and giue them to an other For if this be not an act of superiority as I may speake I know not surely what it is to be superior or if to condemne a King vnheard and to punish him as farre as his regall dignity comes to be not to be the Iudge of a King we must confesse that no motion either of a iudgement or of a Iudge hath beene deliuered and lest vs by our Elders For in that they place the difference in the words Directe indirecte that belongs not to the power of iudgeing and to the effect of the iudgement but onely to the manner and way of acquiring so great a power For the Canonists doe say that the Pope hath receiued directly of Christ the temporal dominion of the whole world But these men I meane the Diuines deeme that he receiued such a dominion directly as if you should say by it selfe simply and without consideration of another thing but onely indirectly that is by consequence in regard of that spirituall power which he hath receiued directly from the Lord. Therefore this difference out of these words ought to be referred to the beginning and meane of acquiring a temporall power but not to the force and effect of the same For whether you say makes nothing for the strength and power of the Popes iudgement ouer Kings vnlesse peraduenture some may say that the Pope if he be an ill man may tyrannize ouer the Parsons and Estates of Kings more freely indirectly then directly But if the opinions of the aduersaries should take place Christian Kings and Princes shall not only be Clients and Vassals to the Pope in temporalities but that which is more base they shall hold their Kingdoms and Principalities as it were at his courtesie And this I doe easily prooue euen out of the very principles and grounds of the aduersaries The Pope may take from any man his kingdome and giue it to another if so be that it be necessary for the health of soules But to iudge and determine if it be necessary belongs to the same Pope of whose iudgement whether it be right or wrong none can iudge therefore where he listeth he may depriue euery man of his kingdome and giue it to another The Proposition in this argument is the very opinion of the aduersaries and the Assumption is without controuersie amongst all Catholikes for none but an Heretike will deny that the charge of soules belonges to the successour of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly the conclusion followes necessarily of the
and we confesse it For if one be more â—orthy then another it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy and is â—â—â—strate and suâ—â—â—â—ted to it for they may â—all out to be comprehended â—â— kinds or orderâ— so â—iuers by nature that neither can depend of other or be hâ—ld by any bond of subiection Therefore we grant that a Prâ—â—ce in the case propâ—â—nded ought to change the â—orm of Câ—uill administâ—at 〈…〉 to â—o it by the church or by the hâ—aâ— thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth which is the Pope but oâ—â—lâ—â—â— Spâ—â—â—tuall punishment the horror whereoâ— to a good man 〈◊〉 greeâ—â—ous then all the pu 〈…〉 by the testiâ—oâ—â—e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporall punishment as is 〈…〉 of Kingdome seeing a 〈…〉 poraltiâ—â— Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a 〈…〉 Hence â—â—dorus whose opinion is registred amongst the Canons Whether the peace and diâ—cipline of the Church be increased by faithfull Princes or 〈…〉 of them who hath deliuered and committed the Church to their power CHAP. XV. Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakned by that which hath been said yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse and more at large to explaine my whole meaning touching this point Therefore we must vnderstand that all Kings and Princes christian as they are the children of the Church are subiect to the Ecclesiastike power and that they ought to obey the same so oft as the commandeth spirituall things which vnlesse they shall doe the Church by the power and Iurisdiction which she hath ouer them may inflict spirituall Censures vpon them and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit although she ought not to doe at alwaies as hath been before declared but with that sâ—ord onely not with the visible and temporall sword alâ—â— because 〈◊〉 sword is committed onely to the Ciuil and Secular power Wherefore so oft as the spirituall power standeth in need of the assistance of the temporall sword she is accustomed to intreat the fauour and friendship of the Ciuill power her friend and companion Contrariwise that Ecclesiastike Princes and Prelates are subiect to ciuill Princes in temporalities and ought to obey them in all things which belong to their ciuill gouernment in no other manner then the Ciuill are bound to obey them commanding spirituall things so as they bee such as repugne neither the Catholike faith nor good manners Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason but because that by the bountie of Kings he hath been made a King himselfe I meane a ciuill Prince acknowledging no man for his superiour in temporalties and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Iurisdiction confesse whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer ad precipua capita Apologiae c. That opinion saith he is generall and most true that all men ought altogether to obey the superiour power But because power is twofold spirituall and temporall Ecclesiastike and Politike of which one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings the Bishops must bee subiect to the Kings in temporall matters and the Kings to the Bishops in spirituall as Gelasius the first in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael And because the Bishop of Rome is not onely a chiefe Prince Ecclesiastike to whom all Christians are subiect by the law of God but is also in his Prouinces a Prince temporall nor acknowledgeth any superiour in temporalties no more than other absolute and soueraigne Princes doe in their kingdomes and iurisdictions hence it commeth to passe that in earth he hath no power ouer him Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection but because he possesseth a temporall principality which is subiect to none Therefore in those matters which belong to the safety of the common wealth and to ciuill society and are not against the diuine ordinance the Cleargie is no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne Prince temporall then other Citizens are as Bellarmine himselfe declareth excellently well adding also a reason secondly for that Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men they are also Citizens and certaine ciuill parts of the common wealth Cleargie men saith he are not any way exempted from the obligation of ciuill lawes which do not repugne the sacred Canons or the clericall dutie And although he saith that he speakes not of coactiue obligation yet is it more true that they may be constrained by a temporall iudge to the obedience of the lawes where the cause doth require that in that case they should not enioy the benefit of their exemption which it is certaine enough that they receiued from the lawes of Emperors and Princes For in vaine doth he challenge the benefit of lawes who offends against them Hence it is I meane out of this society and fellowship of clerkes and laikes in the common weale that in publike assemblies the Cleargie if they be to consult of temporall affaires doe fit in the next place to the Prince Therefore spirituall power by the word of power it is vsuall to signifie the persons indued with power doth both command and obey politike power and the politike her againe And this is that indeed whereof B. Gregorie the Pope admonisheth Maurice the Emperor let not our Lord saith he out of his carthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests but out of his excellent iudgement euen for his sake whose seruants they are let him so rule ouer them as that also he yeeld them due reference That is to say let him rule ouer them so far forth as they are Citizens and parts of the common wealth yeeld reuerence as they are the Priests of God and spirituall fathers to whom the Emperor himselfe as a child of the Church is in subiection And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers is by a singular president declared of Salomon who feared not to pronounce Abiathar the high Priest guilty of death because he had a hand in the treason of Adoniah For the story saith The King also said to Abiathar the Priest Goe thy waies to Auathoth to thy house and surely thou shalt die but to day I will not slay thee because thou hast caried the Arke of the Lord before Dauid my father and hast endured trouble in all those things wherein my father was troubled Therefore Salomon dismissed Abiathar that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Salomon shewes that in a ciuill and temporall businesse he had authority ouer the Priests whereas notwithstanding it is euident that in the old law the Priests were ouer the Kings and vsed to command and also to withstand them in all things
it is not lawfull for them to vse another mans authority and is fitting for the one onely to meddle in matter of armes and for the other with matter of iustice In the same manner two soueraigne Magistrates of the Christian Common-wealth the King and the Pope doe receiue from the common King and Lord of all the great God of Heauen and Earth a diuers power each perfect in his kind and gouerne the people by different iurisdictions and offices And these surely so long as they agree together in concord of mindes doe naturally assist one another to the maintenance and conseruation of each power and authority so as both the Ecclesiastike power doth with the Heauenly and Spiritual sword strike such as be seditious and rebellious subiects to their secular Prince and in requitall the power Temporall and Politike doth with an armed hand pursue Schismatikes and others falling from the faith or otherwise carying themselues stubbornly toward their holy Mother the Church and doth sharply chastice them with temporall punishments and ciuil corrections and Mulctes But when they are rent into contrary factions and oppose themselues one against the other the whole Christian Common-wealth either wholly fales to ground or at least is most greeuously wounded because there is none but God alone who can lawfully deuide that cause and redresse the wrong offred of either side CHAP. XVIII BEing desirous to passe on to other matters I was a little staide by a doubt which did arise touching the sense of the late argument of the second reason which was conceiued by the author in these words Also euery Common-weale because shee ought to be perfect and sufficient in hirselfe may command another Common-wealth not subiect to hir and inforce hir to change her gouernment yea also to depose hir Prince and to ordaine another being shee cannot otherwise defend hirselfe from hir iniuries For to confesse the truth when I first read these words in him I paused awhile that I might throughly vnderstand the meaning of these words and what the moment and waight of this argument might be For he seemed not plainly and expresly to approue it because he did lay open to vs certaine meanes of forceing a Neighbour Common-wealth and deposing the Prince thereof And when I had a long time skanned and examined the same I resolued that either it was a riddle or that his words doe admit this sence and interpretation Euery Common-weale may denounce and wage a iust war against another Common-wealth which beares both hatred and armes against her when as she cannot otherwise deliuer hirselfe from hir iniurie and if shee be the stronger may by force and armes force hir to conditions of peace and if she suppose that by that Caution shee hath not yet prouided sufficiently for hir security because peraduenture shee hath to do with a people that is by nature false and treacherous may reduce the whole Country into her power and iurisdiction and giue her lawes and orders remooue hir Prince take away hir authority and at hir pleasure alter the whole administration of the Common-wealth into another form But if this be the true sense of these words as I suppose it is that argument surely was to small purpose brought of Bellarmine for that is not gathered from hence which he concludes forsooth Much more may the Spirituall Common-wealth command the Temporall Common-wealth being subiect vnto hir and force hir to change hir administration and to depose Princes and ordaine others c. Because in this case there be not two Common-wealthes but onely one Christian resting on two powers whereof neither is subiect to other as we haue aboue sufficiently demonstrated as also for that if we grant that they are two Common-wealthes distinct the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall and the Temporall he must of force confesse that in the one all Bishops and Clerikes only are comprised in the other all secular Princes and Laikes or that this is compounded of onely Ecclesiastikes that of onely Laikes For although the Laikes and Clerikes together doe constitute one Church and one christian Common-weale yet they doe not make together one Ecclesiastike and spiritual Common-wealth as it is distinguished from the temporall nor one temporall and secular Common-wealth but according to the diuision and separation aboue named the Laikes make the temporall and the Ecclesiastikes the spirituall in the case wherein the temporall is distinguished from the spirituall after this manner But now seeing the Ecclesiastike common-wealth containes onely Clerikes whose weapons ought to be none other but Praiers and Teares how can it be that she being weake and vnarmed can compell but by Miracle a temporall Common-weale armed to change the manner of her administration Therefore there is nothing more fond then this comparison and consequution of Bellarmine since in reasoning he proceeds from Common-wealthes well prouided for exercise and furniture of armes to Common-wealthes the one whereof is vtterly disfurnished of armes For as oft as one State either repelleth the iniuries which another would offer or reuengeth them being offered she fighteth with those armes which are allowed her and which by law of armes she may vse that is to say Corporall and Visible by force whereof she ouerturnes the bodies of her enemies inuades their holds battereth townes and ouerthrowes the whole state of the enemie Common-wealth But the spirituall Common-weale which he calles is quite destitute of this kind of armes and because it is composed of Clerikes onely it is lawfull for her to fight with spirituall armes onely which are Prayers and Teares for such are the defences of Priests in no other manner neither ought they neither can they resist For all of them are commanded in the person of Peter to put vp the Materiall sword How then can the spirituall Common-wealth constraine the temporall Common-wealth which contemnes the spirituall thunder-boltes that she should change the manner and forme of her Administration or depose her Prince and ordaine another Now if any peraduenture doe propound that the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth should bee assisted in the execution of so great a matter by the humane forces of secular men for Princes and all other Christians ought to be Nurses and defenders of the Church he will be answered out of hand that in that case the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth doth not constraine the temporall common-weale but is onely the Cause wherefore an other State temporall by whose helpe that spirituall one is defended and protected doth reuenge the wrong done vnto the Church In no other manner than if the whole Common-wealth should reuenge an iniurie or a slaughter receiued in the person of one Citizen Euen as it is recorded that the rest of the Tribes of Israell did wage a bitter and a grieuous warre against the Beniamites for rauishing the wife of one Leuite So the Graecians in times past reuenged Menclaus his iniurie with the ruine of Troy And the Romanes punished with a sharpe warre Teuca Queene of the
to the other although both of them may concurre in the same person For the same person may bee both a temporall Prince and a Bishop but neither as a Pope can hee chalenge to himselfe the actions offices dignities and other rights of Temporall things nor as a Prince of Spirituall If therefore these powers be ioyned together neither in dignities offices nor actions let Bozius tell vs wherein they are ioyned If he say in that because one is subordinate and subiect to the other that is it which we deny and which if it were true it would follow necessarily that those powers are distinguished neither in dignities nor offices but onely in actions and so this opinion of Pope Nicolaus should bee false for dignitie and office which is in the Person subordinated cannot but be in the Person which doth subordinate seeing it is deriued from him into the Person subordinated Hence it is that the Prince takes himselfe to be wronged while his Ministers are hindred in the execution of their offices and the Pope thinketh himselfe and his Sea Apostolike to be contemned if any Contempt be offered to the authoritie of his Legate sent by him But all things and Persons are proclaimed to be free and not subiect vnlesse the contrary be prooued And if these things be so it is very ridiculous and a meere fancie of Bozius his braine that he saies how it appeares by the former speeches of Pope Nicolaus That hee doth not affirme the Lay power to be disioyned from the Spirituall so as a Person Ecclesiasticall may not haue it but that a temporall Person may not haue an Ecclesiasticall For where can this appeare seeing in that letter there is not one word to be seene whereby that may be gathered in any probabilitie And hitherto haue I said enough of this Bozius his error And I am perswaded that no man is so madde that in the determination of this businesse touching the distinction of these powers will not giue credit rather to Hosius then to Bozius CHAP. III. I Would here annex other examples of Bozius his error but that I know that this opinion which he endeuoureth to reuiue being now laid asleep and almost extinguished seemeth in these daies to the learned so absurd and that it is refuted and ouerthrowen with so many and so cleere reasons that now a man need not feare least any be inueigled and ouertaken therewith For first it is certaine that neither Bozius nor al his abetors although they weare wrest the sacred writings and works of the fathers neuer so much shall euer be able to produce any certaine testimony whereby that same temporall iurisdiction and power of the Pope which they dreame on ouer Princes and people of the whole world may be plainly confirmed Nay but not so much as any token or print of any such temporall power deliuered by hand from the Apostles and their successors can be found from the passion of Christ for seauen hundred nay I may say for a thousand yeeres For which cause the most learned Bellarmine in the refutation of this opinion doth very wittily and shortly vse this strange reason If it were so saith he that the Pope be temporall Lord of the whole world that should plainly appeare by the Scriptures or surely out of the tradition of the Apostles Out of the Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keies of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keies of the kingdome of the earth there is no mention and the aduersaries bring forth no tradition of the Apostles The which matters and with all the great diuision about this matter between the Diuines and the Canonists and of each of them one with another maketh that this question of the temporal power of the Pope seemeth very doubtfull and vncertaine and wholly to consist without any ground in the opinion and conceipt of men and therefore that the truth thereof is to be searched and sisted out by the light of reason sharpnesse of arguments and that it is no matter of faith as they speake to thinke of it either one way or other for that those things which are matters of faith are to be held of all men after one manner But for mine owne part although I doe with heart and mouth professe that the chiefe Bishop and prelate of the city of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ the lawfull successor of S. Peter yea the vniuersall and supreme pastor of the Church is indued with spirituall power ouer all christian Kings and Monarchs and that he hath and may exercise ouer them the power to bind and loose which the Scripture doth witnesse that it was giuen to the Apostle Peter ouer all soules yet notwithstanding I am not therefore perswaded that I should alike beleeue that he comprehendeth secular Kings and Princes with in his temporall iurisdiction or when they doe offend against God or Men or otherwise abuse their office that he may in any sort abrogate their gouernment and take their Scepters away and bestow them on others or indeed in a word that he hath any right or iurisdiction temporall ouer any lay-persons of what condition or order and ranke so euer they be vnlesse he shall purchase the same by Ciuill and lawfull meanes For as much as I haue obserued that the opinion which affirmeth the same hath beene assaied indeed and attempted by diuers but hitherto could neuer be prooued of any sufficient and strong reason and for the contrarie opinion much more weightie and more certaine reasons may be brought For my part in regard of the zeale I beare to the Sea Apostolike I could wish with all my heart that it might be prooued by certaine and vndoubted arguments that this right belongs vnto it being very ready to encline to that part to which the weightier reason and authority of truth do swaie But now let vs come nearer to the disputation it selfe That it is euidently false that the Pope hath authority and rule ouer Kings and Princes it is certaine euen by this that it were an absurd thing and vniust to say that heathen Princes are receiued by the Church in harder and worser termes then other particular men of the commons whosoeuer or that the Pope hath at this day greater power ciuill ouer christian Princes then in times past S. Peter the rest of the Apostles had ouer euery priuate man that was a child of the Church but they in those times had neuer any right or power temporall ouer christian lay-persons therefore neither hath the Pope now a daies any temporall power ouer secular Princes The assumption is prooned by this because it is most certaine that in the time of the Apostles the Ecclesiasticall power was wholy seuered from the ciuill I doe not hereweigh Bozius fooleries and that this ciuill power was wholly in the hands of heathen Princes out of the Church In somuch as the Apostles themselues were within the
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
list the Annals and Records of all Nations let him read through all Scriptures and Stories he shall finde amongst them no one step whereby it may be gathered that those christian Princes when they gaue their names to the Church did submit their Scepters to the Pope and did specially and by name a bandon their soueraigne temporall Magistracie But it must appeare that Princes wittingly and knowingly did descend and giue themselues into the dition and authoritie temporall of the Pope or we must confesse that as much as concerned regall dignitie they remained after Baptisme in the same power and condition wherein they were before they receiued holy imitation of Christianitie for as he witnesseth himselfe the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and peculiar fee. But before they gaue their name to Christ of right and in fact as he saith they exercised ciuill authoritie ouer the Pope and might lawfully iudge him in temporall Cases therefore they might likewise doe it lawfully after Baptisme Which if it be so it cannot be by any meanes that they should be iudged by him in temporall matters seeing it is impossible that any man should bee superiour and inferiour in the same kind of authoritie and in respect of one and the same thing It is true that those christian Princes for the reuerence they bare not onely to the Pope but also to all other Bishops yea and Priests also did very seldome put that iudgement in practise But this argues a want of will onely and not of power also Wherefore as a Consul or President when he yeelds himselfe to adoption transferres none of those rights which belong to him by his office into the familie and power of his adoptiue father neither can transferre them but reserues them all entirely to himselfe so Princes in the beginning hauing deliuered themselues into the spirituall adoption of the ecclesiastike Hierarchie could by that act loose none of those things which belonged to the right of a kingdome and their publike ciuill estate for that the nature of these powers is deuided so as although being yoaked and coupled together they did very htlv and handsomely frame together in the same christian Common-wealth yet neither of them as it is such is subiect or master to the other and neither doth necessarilie follow and accompanie the other but each may be both obtained and also lost or kept without the other But now because the learned Bellarmine is very much delighted with similitudes and besides prooues thi common opinion de indirect a potestate temporals summ◠Pontificis by no testimonie either of Scriptures or of ancient Fathers but onely by certaine reasons fetched a simili a very poore and weake foundation to build a demonstration vpon I thinke I shall not doe amisse by a similitude of much more fitnesse to confirme also our opinion of this matter The sonne of the familie although he goe to warres and beare publike office and charge is by the law of God and man subiect to his Father in whose sacred houshold power he is yet abiding And againe the father who hath this power ouer his sonne is subiect to his sonne as a magistrate but 〈◊〉 another kind of power For the one as he is a Parent challengeth authority ouer his sonne whereby he may correct chastise and punish him offending and committing any thing against the lawes of the family or practising any thing against himselfe or otherwise doing that which is vnworthy and vnfitting a good sonne not by the right of a Magistrate but by the authority of his fatherly power and not with euery kind of punishment but only with certaine which are allowed by the law Therefore if his sonne deserue ill he may disherit him cast him out of the house depriue him of the right of the family and kindred and chastise him with other domesticall remedies But he can not disanull his Magistracy nor take from him his goods in the campe nor condemne him by a publike iudgement neither inflict any other mulct or paine due for his fault by the law either directly or indirectly because this course exceedeth the measure and iurisdiction of a fatherly power But the other although a sonne and obliged by the fathers bond yet as he is a Magistrate in publike authority ruleth ouer his father and in publike affaires and euen in priuate so be it they be not domesticall may command him as well as other Citizens If there be a sonne of a family saith Vlpian and beare an office he may constraine his father in whose power he is suspectum dicentem haereditatem adire restituers From hence if the sonne of the family be Consul or President he may either be emancipated or giuen into adoption before himselfe For which cause the father is no lesse bound then if he were a stranger not only to obey his sonne being in office but also to rise to him and to honor him with all the respect and honor which belongeth to the Magistrate In the very same manner the Pope who is the spirituall father of all Christians by his fatherly Ecclesiastike power as the Vicar of Christ doth command Kings and Princes as well as the rest of the faithfull and in that respect if Kings commit any thing against God or the Church he may sharply chastise them with spirituall punishments cast them out of the house and family of God and disinherit them of the kingdome of heauen most fearefull and terrible punishments for christian hearts to thinke on because all these things are proper to his fatherly power spirituall But neither can he take from them temporall principality and domination nor inflict ciuill punishments vpon them because he hath obtained no ciuill and temporall iurisdiction ouer them by which such manner of chastisement ought to be exercised as also for that the fatherly power spirituall wherewith the Pope is furnished is very far diuided from the ciuill and temporall in ends offices and euen in persons also For God as he hath committed spirituall power to the Pope and the other Priests so also hath he giuen the ciuill by an euerlasting 〈◊〉 tion to the King and the Magistrates which be vnder him There is no power but of God To this place belongs that ancient glosse which the Cardinall of Cusa writes that it was assured to the Canon Hadrianus Papa 63. in which Canon it is deliuered that the Pope with the whole Synod granted to Charles the great the honor of the Patriciate For the glosse said that a Patrician was a father to the Pope in temporalities as the Pope was his father in spiritualities And the same Cardinall in the same booke speaking of the electers of the Germane Emperors from whence the electors saith he who in the time of Henry the second were appointed by the common consent of all the Almans and others who were subiect to the Empire haue a radicall power from that common consent
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
directly any temporall power but onely Spirituall but that by reason of the Spirituall hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that verie great to dispose of the Temporalities of all Christians And so looke what they doe allow the Pope by a direct course the same doe these men giue him by an oblique and indirect meanes so as the meanes onely is diuers but the effect is the same For my part when I consider of this question I finde that neither of their opinions as touching the temporall power hath any certaine ground and yet if they be compared together that the Canonistes opinion may more easily be maintained then the Diuines especially seeing it is not contrary to the order of nature according to which a man by his right exerciseth authoritie granted vnto him ouer others and therefore it containes nothing vnpossible But the opinion of the Diuines as it is propounded by their owne side ouerturnes the naturall course of things which willeth that no man vse any power or authoritie ouer others which is neither by name granted to him nor is any whit necessary to the effecting of those things which are committed to his trust Therefore these Diuines do indeed very well refute the opinion of the Canonists but for all that with their leaue they thinke not a whit the better themselues whereby a man may see how much more easie it is to finde an vntruth in other mens writings then to defend a truth in his owne There is also euen amongst themselues a contention touching this point For many of them haue ioined themselues with the Canonists either for that they are deceiued with a shew of truth or that bearing too much and that a very blind affection to Peters Sea which indeed is woorthy all honour they would also grace it with this title of Power and Dignitie or being obliged by some speciciall fauors of the Popes haue by this endeuor of thankfulnes desired to draw their good opinions close to themselues I will not say to gaine them through this vnreasonable flattery of theirs And amongst these is one who being lately sprung out of the Congregation of the Oratrie hath stept foorth as a sharpe Abettour for the Canonists aboue other men Whom therfore a learned man a famous preacher as any is amongst the Iesuâ—tes when I asked him what he thought of this opinion of Bozius hee called him a Popes parasite For in his books he doth earnestly maintaine That all Kingly power and authoritie and Lordship of al things which are in earth are giuen to the Bishop of Rome by the Law of God and that what power soeuer whersoeuer in the world temporall Kings and Princes aswell beleeuing as vnbeleeuing haue doth wholly depend of the Pope and so farre as concernes temporall execution is deriued from him to them So that he as the Lord of the whole world may giue and take kingdomes and principalities to whom and where he will although no man knowes why he doth so And therefore saith he he might adiudge and bequeath the West Indies of Castile and the East Indies of Portingall although all men vnderstand not the coherence of the reason whereby they were disposed as wee said before And therefore being emboldned with a confidence of maintaining this opinion he doth greeuously accuse many excellent Diuines amongst whom is that worthy man Bellarmine who can neuer woorthily be commended cals them new Diuines affirmeth That they teach matters that be notoriously false and contrarie to all truth because they say that Christ as man was not a temporall king neither had any temporall dominion in earth nor exercised any kingly power for by these assertions the principall foundations of Bozius his dotages are ouerthrowen when as these great Diuines affirme that they are most true and confirmed by the owne testimonie of our Sauiour The Foxes saith he haue holes and the birds of heauen nests but the Sonne of man hath no where to lay his head Where then is his kingdome where is his Temporall dominion who can conceiue and imagine that there is a king or a Lord who hath neither kingdome nor Lordship in the vniuersall world We know that Christ as he is the Sonne of God is King of glorie the King of Kings the Lord of heauen and earth and of all things raigning euerlastingly together with the Father the holy Spirit But what is this to a Temporall kingdome What is this to a crowne and scepter of a temporall Maiestie Certainly I haue perused all that Bozius hath deliuered to this purpose but I haue not found any sound reason for the confirming of his purpose nothing that was not corrupted with the mixture of fallaries and sophistication nothing grounded vpon ancient and approoued authorities nothing but depraued with a glosse of a deuised interpretation Before this time Henricus Segutianus Cardinall of Hostia was intangled with the same errour whose new and strange opinion at that time is thought within a while after to haue inflamed beyond all measure as it were with new firebrands of ambition Boniface the 8. a man exceeding desirous of glorie But the case is at this time very well altered because that opinion of Hostiensis which afterwards the Canonists followed Bozius now embraceth is vpon very grounded reason condemned by certaine Diuines And also for that the Church of God hath at this day such a chiefe Bishop I meane Clement the eight who sheweth himselfe to the world so excellent and admirable not onely in pietie learning but also in humility iustice charitie and other vertues worthy so great a Pastor that we need not feare least such a Bishop should bee so stirred and infected with a vaine opinion which is vnderpropped onely with fooleries and snares of words that hee should challenge to himselfe any thing which of due belonged not vnto him Neither had Bozius offered so rash assertions to so great a Bishop but that impudencie dare doe anything It were time ill spent to touch seuerally vpon all his errors and fopperies Onely least I should seeme for mine owne pleasure onely to haue found fault with the man I will lay before you one instance of his foolish and quirking dealing that the Reader may iudge of the beast by his Loose CHAP. II. FIrst of all we must vnderstand that those two powers whereby the world is kept in order I meane the Ecclesiasticall and the Ciuill are so by the law of God distinguished and separated that although they bee both of God each of them being included in his bounds can not by any right enter vpon the borders of the other and neither haue power ouer the other as S. Bernard truely and sweetly teacheth in his first booke de Consider ad Eugenium and amongst the later Diuines Iohn Driedo And the woorthy Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to the Emperour Constantine an Arrian doth euidently declare the same difference of
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
Chapter of Bellarmine the which also in this place we will and that by good right fit to our purpose in this maner If it be true that the Pope hath temporall power indirectly to dispose of the temporalties of all Christians he hath the same either by the law of God or of man If by the law of God That should appeare by the Scriptures or surely by the tradition of the Apostles Out of the Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keies of the kingdome of earth there is no mention as for tradition of Apostles the aduersaries produce none neither Canonists nor Diuines If by mans law let them bring foorth their law that we may be all of the same opinion with them But if they shall say that they neede neither expresse word of God nor tradition of Apostles for the confirmation of this power since it appertameth to the Pope onely indirectly and by a kinde of consequence as a certaine and inseparable accession and appurtenance of that Spirituall power wherewith the supreme Pastor of soules is indued ouer all the sheepe of the Christian flocke We also will require of them some testimonie of this accession and coniunction either out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles Wee doe require I say that they teach vs either out of Scriptures or tradition of Apostles that this is an accession and consequence necessarie and inseparable to that Spirituall power which the Pope hath and that it belongeth to the Popes office in some manner that is indirectly as they speake to dispose of all temporall matters of Christians seeing it is verie vnlikely if that belongs to his office that so great an extent of power and which there is nothing higher amongst men hath beene omitted in so deepe silence in the Church so many ages both by Christ our Sauiour and also by the Apostles and their successors for if each power may be seuered from other the Spirituall from the Temporall and contiarily there will be some place for that opinion which determines that that which is not permitted to be done directly cannot be done indirectly for so haue wise men defined as oft as any thing is forbidden to bee done directly that the same can neither bee done indirectly or by consequence vnlesse that which is forbidden doe follow necessarily to another thing lawfully permitted so as the thing permitted cannot proceed without the thing prohibited and vnlesse as I may speake with the Ciuilians The cause of both be so commixed that it cannot be seuered Whereby it is concluded that hee who is alone cannot alien any thing cannot yeeld to a sute moued vpon the same thing for that by this meane he should obliquely indirectly alien Therefore if the Pope as he is Pope hath no temporall power directly ouer Christians which they do grant it seemeth to be proued by the former sentence of the law that he can haue none not so much as indirectly Therefore that they may perswade men to their opinion they ought to bring testimonie out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles or at least make plaine that this temporall power whereof they speake is so ioined with the Spirituall that by no meanes it can be pulled and diuided from it I meane that the Spirituall cannot consist without it Which because they could not performe they haue followed nothing but vncertaine opinions and such reasons as seeme not sufficiently to conclude that which they assume which we will examine in their order and place CHAP. VI. THe former opinion of the temporall power which they say the Pope hath indirectly is vehemently shaken euen by this that neither practise nor example nor any mention of such a papall power hath been heard of the space of a thousand yeeres in the Church when as in those times many christian Princes did abuse their Kingdomes and Gouernments impiously cruelly peruersly and to the great preiudice and mischeefe of the Church whereof one of the two must needs follow that either the Bishops of those times were wanting to their duties or that the Bishops of the times ensuing did and at this day doe gouerne the Church with greater power and command because these later haue openly challenged to themselues this temporall power and haue endeuoured to pull the same in and at their pleasure ouer Kings and Princes but the former haue not at any time acknowledged that any such right belongeth to them I am not ignorant what answers haue been made by diuers to excuse those first Pastors but I know that they are such that if they be diligently examined they can not be allowed by the opinion of any indifferent iudge There came foorth a booke printed at Rome the yeere of our Lord 1588. published vnder a fained name of Franciscus Romulus with this title An answer to certaine heads of an Apologie which is falsly intituled Catholike for the succession of Henry of Nauar into the Kingdome of France The author of which booke whome Bellarmine knowes and loues very well labours to take away this most important obiection by the change of the state of the Church and by the diuerse reason and condition of times and persons which oftentime brings in diuersity of law For thus he saith And now where as the aduersarie obiecteth in the fourth place touching the custome of our ancestors who endured many hereticall Princes as Constantius and Valens Arius Anastasius an Eutychian Heraclius a Monothelite and others besides it makes nothing to the matter For the Church ought not rashly and inconsideratly to abuse her power Moreouer it falleth out not very seldome that the power of certaine Kings is so great being also ioined with wickednesse and cruelty that the Ecclesiasticall censure neither profiteth any thing to restraine them and doth very much hurt to Catholike people vpon whom these Princes prouoked do rage the more For I pray you what had it auailed the Church in times past if she had assaied to excōmunicate to depose either the Ostrogoth Kings in Italy or the Visegothes in Spain or the Vandales in Afrik although she might haue done it very iustly and the very same ought to be vnderstood of Constantius and Valens and others aboue named and indeed then the times were such as that the Bishops ought rather to haue been ready to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes But when the Church perceiued that now some place was opened to her power either with the spirituall profit of the Princes themselues or at least without the mischeefe and hurt of the people she was not wanting to her selfe as the examples alleadged before doe prooue For thus the Church iudged that Leo Isaurus was to be depriued of halfe his Empire and Henry the fourth of the whole and Childerike of the Kingdome of France and indeed afterward both Leo wanted part of his Empire and Henry the whole and Childerike his kingdome of France
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
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
of all men who might by the law of nature constitute an Emperor ouer them not from the Bishop of Rome who hath no authority to giue a King or Emperor to any Prouince in the world without the consent of the same The same Cardinall being himselfe both a great Diume and Philosopher addeth many other things in that place by which he confirmes our distinction and declares that Emperors and Kings are both ouer and vnder the Popes And thus much touching the first reason of Bellarmine and the arguments brought by him to prooue the same CHAP. XVII THe second reason followes which is concluded by two fould arguments The second reason saith he the Ecclesiastike Common-weale ought to be perfect and in it selfe sufficient in order to her end For such are all Common-weales rightly founded therefore ought shee to haue all power necessary to attaine her end But the power to vse and to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to this Spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might with impunity nourish Heretikes and ouerturne religion therefore shee hath this power also Againe euery Common-wealth because it ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe may command another Common-wealth which is not subiect to it and constraine it to change the Gouernment yea euen to depose hir Prince and to appoint another when it cannot otherwise defend it selfe from hir ininries therefore much more may the Spirituall Common-weale command the Temporall Common-weale being subiect to hir and force it to change the Gouernment and to depose the Princes and appoint others seing she cannot otherwise maintaine hir Spirituall good I answer that heere are so many faults in this place as it seemeth that the Author did either idlely and carelesly transcribe all this out of some other or if it be all his owne that he did not very well remember those things which he had said before For a little before when as he laboured by another argument to prooue that the Ciuill power is subiect to the Ecclesiastike he affirmed that these powers were parts only of one Common-wealth and that they did constitute only one Common-wealth The first reason saith he is thus The Ciuill power is subiect to the Spirituall power because each of them is a part of the same Christian Common-wealth And againe secondly Kings Bishops and Clerikes and Laikes do not make two Common-wealthes but one But in this place he quite changes these two Powers into two Common-wealthes which therefore ought to be so seuered and disioyned as that Kings and Laikes doe make a Politike and Temporall Common-wealth Bishops and Clerikes a Spirituall or Ecclesiastike then which nothing could be spoken more absurdly or vnfitly for the present purpose For either he speaketh in this place of an Ecclesiastike power which is wholy seuered from the Ciuill power as it was once in the time of the Apostles and now is in those places where Christians laie amongst Heathen and Infidesl in which case it is euident that the Power or Common-wealth Ecclesiastike as he calles it or the Prince and Hierarch thereof hath no authority at all not so much as Spirituall ouer the Ciuill Prince because he is not a child of the Church Or he speakes of the power Ecclesiastike ioyned with the Ciuill as in a Christian Common-wealth and then hee doth wrong to make hir two Common-wealthes one Ecclesiastike and the other Politike when as they be onely two powers of one Christian Common-wealth and parts and members of one Church and Misticall body of Christ as himselfe deliuered before Further it is fals which he assumes That the power to vse to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to a spiritual end c. For the Prince of the Apostles himselfe openly teacheth that he had no such manner of authority ouer the temporalities of Christians except those which themselues of their owne accord did confer and offer to the Church when he saith Ananias why hath Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the holy Spirit and defraud of the price of the field Whilest it remained did it not belong to thee and being sould was it not in thy power If the Apostles had had power to dispose of the temporalties of Christians Peter surely had not said Did it not c. and when as Ananias might presently haue replied yes you had power to dispose of my goods and therefore fearing least you would take from mee more then was cause I concealed part of the price But because the Church had not this power therefore without cause did he lye to the holy Ghost And how if out of this foundation of Bellarmine it should follow that the primitiue Church had not all necessarie power to attaine vnto her end for for the space of 300 yeeres and more wherein she liued vnder heathen Princes after the passion of Christ she neuer had this power to dispose of Christians temporalties in which time notwithstanding it is most certaine that an infinite multitude of men and almost the greatest part of the world had giuen their names to Christ and that a more seuere and strict discipline raigned in the Church then at any time beside that it is impious to say that the Church was not then furnished with all necessarie meanes of Right and of Fact to attaine her end for the workes of God are perfect And surely he should doe Christ no small iniurie who thinkes that the Church is by him left and deliuered to the Apostles destitute of necessarie meanes for her preseruation Whatsoeuer was necessarie for the Church to attaine her end was abundantly and plentifully bestowed by Christ on his Apostles when he said Ego dabo vobis os sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere contradicere omnes aduersarij vestri Therfore whosoeuer conceiues that Christ recommended his Church to Peter and willed him thrice to feede his Lambes and Sheepe and supposeth that for the feeding of those sheepe and to the accomplishing of the end of his commandement he did not grant them all things necessarie both in Right and in Fact hee seemes to me no better then an Atheist and to doubt of the prouidence power and goodnesse of God Let vs imagine that he did not giue all power necessarie for the execution of so great a charge can any other reason why he did not be assigned then for because either the Lord knew not what was needfull or had no abilitie in him to giue it or which is a point of extreame malice he meant to deceiue his seruants and friends by enioyning that dutie vnto them which hee knew very well that they were neuer able to performe By these things it is cleare that the temporall authoritie and power to depose Princes is no way necessarie for the Church to attain her end although in humane consideration it may seeme sometimes to be profitable For God who hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and
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
summae de Ecclesia Secondly it may be said and better with Albert Pighius lib. 5. Hierar Ecclesi cap. 7. that there is a difference betweene Heathen and Christian Princes for when the Princes were heathen the Bishop was not their Iudge but cleane contrarie he was subiect to them in all ciuill Causes no lesse then other men for it is plaine that the Bishop was not Iudge of them because he is not a Iudge but of the faithfull 1. Cor. 6. What haue I to doe to iudge of them which are without And that of the contrarie he is ciuilly subiect to them both of right and indeed as it is plaine For the Christian law depriueth no man of his right and dominion Therefore euen as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and to Kings so also after Wherefore Peter and Paul euery where exhort the faithfull to be subiect to Princes as appeareth ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeale to Caesar and acknowledged him his Iudge when hee was accused of the sedition and tumult which was raised amongst the people Thus he whereby it is plaine that not onely want of strength was the reason why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes but also because all law both diuine and humane was against such an action and in the same booke and Chapter he teacheth more openly when hee saith that to iudge punish depose belonged onely to a superiour which is most true and without all controuersie is confirmed by the common iudgement of men And now by these most certaine Principles set downe and granted by him euery one that hath any skill in reasoning may gather that the Christians although they were mightie both in numbers and strength could not by right depose Nero Diocletian and other heathen and wicked Princes and that is concluded by this strong and vnanswerable demonstration Subiects cannot iudge punish or depose a Superiour But all Christians were subiect to Nero Diocletian c. and other Emperours and Heather Kings Ergo they could not depose such Emperours or Kings The proposition is granted by him and likewise the Assumption which doe stand vpon most certaine truth and the conclusion depends of the Antecedents by a necessary consecution and is directly contrary to that which he had said That Christians in times past might lawfully depos Nero Diocletian c But for that they wanted temporall power strength they forbare that purpose Therfore it is false and worthy to be reprehended For aientia negantia simul vera esse nequeunt Heereby also is the falshood of the opinion of S. Thomas euident which we haue refuted aboue in this Chapter CHAP. XXII I Said that Bellarmine vsed a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason which is That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretike King whereof I haue already noted the faults of the first Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what maner of arguments they are and what strength they haue Therefore the second argument is this To tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King labouring to draw men to his sect is to expose religion to manifest danger But Christians are not bound neither indeed ought they to tolerate an infidell King with the manifest danger of Religion for when there is difference and contention between the law of God and the law of Man it is a matter of Gods law to keepe and obserue the true faith and religion which is one onely and not many but it is a point of mans law that we haue this or that King To these things I answer that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these doe not reason rightly nor according to arte but doe propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without forme For for that which he assumes But Christians are not bound yea they ought not without euident danger of religion to tolerate an Infidell King Insteed whereof should haue beene placed in good Logike this Assumption But Christians are not bound yea they ought not to expose religion to euident danger That the Conclusion might follow thereof Ergo It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King For the assumption which he setteth downe is almost iust the same with the Proposition that is in question But to allow him somewhat let vs grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good forme and let vs answer to the force of the argument I say then that his Proposition is false I say againe that it is not true that To tolerate an Heretike or Heathen King endeuouring to draw men to his sect is to expose Religion to manifest danger But it is onely to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretike or Infidell King to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people seeing now the people hath no iust and lawful remedy left them to deliuer Religion but onely Constancy and Patience And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians vnlesse we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians who did without any shrinking or tergiuersation or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius Iuliaenus Valens and other renouncers of Christian religion because they came lawfully to the Empire and whom they might most easily haue remooued or deposed they honoured them with all honour duty and reuerence euen because they were their Emperours and Kings These holy fathers then and worthy Christians in that age did tolerate Heretike and Infidel Kings although if we onely looke at their temporall strength they were furnished with excellent meanes and opportunities to depose them and yet none that is in his wits will euer say that they exposed Religion to most euident danger thorow that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy Now I speake of tolerating that King who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen where Christians doe not rule or who when he was admitted and enstalled into his Gouernment was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King ouer themselues no law nor religion enforceing whom they know to be either an Heretike or an Infidell is indeed to expose Religion to most euident danger and in that behalfe it were a greeuous sinne in the Christians and they that doe it are worthy miserably to perish therefore Now for that which he deduceth out of the opposition betweene diuine and humane law I answer â—reeâ—ly that he is much deceiued in this that in this matter he supposeth there is a crosse encounter and conflict betweene the law of God and the law of man For they are not repugnant To keepe faith and Religion and to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King Neither is the one by diuine law the other by humane as he imagineth But they be two Preceptâ— of Gods law
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
flocke But a shepheard hath a threefold charge one about Wolues that hee driue them away by all meanes he can the other about the Rammes that he may shut them vp if they hurt the flocke with their hornes the third about the rest of the sheepe that he giue euery one conuenient food Ergo The Pope hath this triple charge Out of this principle and foundation are drawen three strong arguments as he surmiseth But not to goe farre first I answer to this very fundamentall proposition that it is all true and maketh for me and that the very contrarie of that which he affirmes may very handsomely be gathered from thence I say gathered that the Pope hath no temporall power at all or may exercise any vpon Christian Princes as he is the Vicar of Christ and successor of S. Peter seeing such a manner of power is not necessarie for the Pope for the discharging and fulfilling of his Pastorall dutie And that is euidently concluded by this argument Christ by commending his sheepe to Peter gaue him all power necessarie to defend the flocke But he gaue him no temporall power Therefore temporall power is not necessarie to defend the flocke Secondly we will proceed in this manner It is a thing vnreasonable that the Pope who is the successor of S. Peter should haue more power then had Peter himselfe But Peter had not any temporall power ouer Christians Therefore Neither the Pope as he is his successor The proposition of the former reason is without all controuersie true And the Assamption is prooued by the testimonie and confession of Bellarmine himselfe For lib. quint. de Rom. Pontif. where he endeuours to establish his opinion of this thing by a similitude of the flesh and the spirit he writeth thus For as the spirit and flesh stand one toward the other in Man so doe the two powers in the Church for the flesh and the spirit be as it were two Common-wealthes which may be found both separated and toyned together flesh is found without the spirit in beasts spirit is found without flesh in the Angels and a little after Euen so the Ciuill power hath her Princes Lawes Iudgements c. Likewise the Ecclesiasticall her Bishops Canons Iudgements the one hath for her end a temporall peace the other euerlasting saluation sometimes they are found seuered as once in the time of the Apostles sometime toyned as now If these powers were seuered in the time of the Apostles as in trueth they were both in Right and in Deed it followeth necessarily that S. Peter had no temporall power otherwise it should be false that they were seuered for it there be place to the similitude propounded by him it will follow that as there is nothing fleshly in Angels and nothing spirituall in beasts so in the time of the Apostles there should be no temporall power in the Church or spirituall in the Ciuill state Therefore we must confesse either that temporall power is not necessarie for the chiefe Pastor of the Church or that the Prince of the Apostles himselfe and cheefe Pastor S. Peter was not furnished and accomplished with all things necessarie for the discharge of his Pastorall dutie And this is as contrarie as contrarie may be to that which he had already said in his fundamentall reason as I may call it to wit That all abilitie necessarie to defend the flocke was giuen to Peter The same also is prooued by this that all ciuill and temporall power at that time depended of heathen Princes to whom Peter himselfe witnesse Bellarmine although the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ was subiect in temporalities both by Right and in Deed. Wherof it followeth that either S. Peter was induced with no temporall power or that he receiued it from heathen Princes otherwise as we said before it should be false that those powers were then separated But it is certaine that he receiued none of them and therefore that he had none at all And certainly these reasons are more plaine then any man without fraud and cunning can gainesay that it is a wonder to see that learned men and otherwise godly should so be blinded with an inconsiderate and vnaduised heate that they should not sticke to embrace and follow doubtfull things for certaine obscure for euident crooked for straight for plaine and easie reasons those which be perplexed and intricately bewrapped with many controuersies and contradictions But they take care you will say to amplifie and adorne the Sea Apostolike with the increase and accession of this power and authoritie And is there any Catholike who doth not commend their minds that are affected to that Sea which is the foundation and strength of our faith That they doe grace and aduance by all meanes that Sea which no man can sufficiently commend according to her worth I doe much commend them but that they attribute more to it then is fit and that with the great scandall of many that I doe not commend for we our selues also do no lesse honour the same Sea we no lesse loue reuerence admire it as that which is the true seate of Peter and being placed in the rocke which is Christ hath ouercome all heresies and obtaineth by good right the chiefe place in the Church But the truth forbids that we should aduance her with this increase of Power our Conscience bearing vs witnesse before God and the Lord Iesu before whom in the day of the reuelation of the iust iudgement both these our writings and theirs shall appeare consigned with their owne merrits Therefore there is small cause why they should bring this former reason for themselues For Christ when hee said to Peter Pasce oues meas appointed him indeed Pastor of his flocke but a Spirituall Pastor not a Temporal and gaue him all ability necessary for that office whereby it appeares that Temporal power is not necessary for the Pope because Christ gaue it not to Peter himselfe Neither haue we heard any where that either S. Peter or any other of his Apostles did practise any temporall power or authority by vertue whereof he did either directly or indirectly that no man may suppose any force in words punish the forsakers of the Christian faith with Ciuill punishment after the manner of Magistrates It is true indeed that sometimes it hath come to passe that Temporall punishment as death or Torment hath followed a spiritual sentence the church at that time standing in need of miracles and wonders to confirme the faith which kind of punishments did strike a farre greater feare into the mindes of Christians then if after the manner of men they had suffered punishment at the hands of Ciuill Magistrates And this is that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians What will you shall I come to you with a rod or in loue and in the spirit of meekenesse The rod he calleth that spirituall power which by the wonderfull working of God did at that time
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
vse a temporall authority euen ouer them who haue receiued authoritie ouer others And if any Bishop may doe that much more the Prince of Bishops Thus he And this example also is very farre from the matter in question wherein appeareth neither mention nor so much as any token of a temporall authority of a Bishop ouer an Emperour or any thing else whereby it may be concluded by any probable argument that such an authority doth belong to a Bishop but wholy belongeth to that spirituall authority of a Bishop which we both in heart acknowledge and confesse with the mouth that the pope hath ouer all Christians of what order or place so euer they be Ambrose excommunicated the Emperour for an offence committed by the iniust slaughter of many men doth not this belong to the spirituall iurisdiction of the Church which at this time Ambrose did exercise by his Episcopall authority But he could not excommunicate saieth he vnlesse he had vnderstood and iudged of that cause before although it were criminall and belonged to the externall Court Yes he might de facto as vnaduised Priests doe whome I haue seene sometimes send out an excommunication without tendring of the cause but de iure he ought not otherwise he should haue beene an iniust iudge if he had punished the delinquent party without hearing of the cause But let it be so he vnderstood the cause and iudged him worthy of censure and therefore did excommunicate the Emperour what then But he could not vnderstand and iudge of such a cause saith hee vnlesse also hee had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an Externall Court Alas wee are catched in a snare vnlesse wee beware this peece of sophistry there lurketh in this assertion an exceeding cunning deceit by these words In an Externall Court A Court is twofold Politique or Ciuill and Ecclesiasticke or Spirituall The ciuill Court is wholy externall the Ecclesiasticke is subdiuided into externall and internall The externall Court Ecclesiasticke is wherein the causes belonging to the notice of the Church are openly handled and iudged and if they be criminall punishment is taken of them by ExcoÌ„munication interdiction suspension depositioÌ„ or by other means and oftentimes both the temporall and spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iudge doe heare the same crime euen in the externall Court but each of them in his proper Court and to impose diuers penalties as the ciuill Iudge taketh knowledge of adultery vt sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur The Iudge Eclesiastique also taketh knowledge who hath the care of the soule to admonish the offender of his fault and if he persist in offending to chastise him with spiritualll punishments But the internall Court of the Church which is called the Court of the soule the Court of Poenitencie the Court of Conscience is that wherein the Priest takes notice and iudgeth of the sins reuealed to him by the conscience and in his discretion doth enioine him Poenitency according to the quality of the sinne For now the common opinion is that Poenitential constitutions are arbitrary that not only the Bishop but also any discreete Confessor may regularly moderate and mitigate them in the Court of the soule If therefore Bellarmine by forum externum do vnderstand the Ecclesiasticall Court which is content with spirituall paines onely wee grant all which hee saith For Ambrose was the lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in that Court and that he openly declared in deed and in effect when as hee did excommunicate him But when this is set down and granted there can nothing bee gathered from hence to confirm the temporall authority of Bishop or Pope because aswell the iudgement as the punishment was spirituall But if Bellarmine by forum externum vnderstand the ciuill Court it is most false which he propoundes for as the powers ecclesiasticke and ciuill are distinguished of God so are their Courts dictinct their iudgements distinct For the same Mediator of God and men Christ Iesus hath seuered the offices of each power by their proper actions and distinct dignitus Surely hee doth Ambrose great wrong if he thinke that after hee had obtained the Bishopricke hee heard and iudged criminall causes in a ciuill Court Ambrose then was no lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall ciuil Court which is inough to proue that hee could not iudge or punish the Emperour with any temporall punishment But you will say Ambrose heard and iudged of the slaughter It is true but not as a ciuill and temporall Iudge J say I did not take knowledge of the crime for the same end for which the secular Iudge doth that place out of Aristotle is very good that many may take knowledge of one and the same subiect diuersly and after a diuers manner end and intention Jt is the same right angle which the Geometrician searcheth to vnderstand and the handicrafts man to worke by it So it is the same crime whereof the Laicke Iudge taketh notice that hee may punish the offender by death banishment the purse or by some other temporall punishment and which the ecclesiasticall Iudge knoweth that for the quality of the offence he may enioine spirituall punishment and Penitence At coegit Imperatorem adlegem politicum ferendam viz. he constrained the Emperour to make a ciuill law and therefore hee vsed a temporall authority ouer him A â—est If hee constrained him by what power by feare of what did hee constraine him The summe of the story will teach vs that which is thus Ambrose had cast on Theodosius the band of excommunication from whence when the Emperour desired to be deliuered the graue Prelate denies to doe it before such time as hee see in him some fruit of repentance what paenitence saith he haue you shewed after so hainous a crime or with what medicine haue you cured your grieuons wounde The Emperour answered that it is the office of the Bishop to temper and lay a medicine to the wound that is to say to enioine poenitencie to the sinner but of the Poenitent to vse those medicines which are giuen him that is to say to performe the poenitency enioined vnto him Ambrose hearing this for poenitence and satisfaction he imposed vpon the Emperour the necessity to make this law whereof we speake which being made and enacted for presently the Emperour commaunded the law to bee ordained Ambrose did loose him fram his bonds of excommunication Therefore in this case Ambrose vsed no temporall authoritie against Theodosius but whatsoeuer it was he commaunded by vertue and power of his spirituall iurisdiction neither did the Emperour obey this Prelate for feare of any temporall punishment for if hee would not haue obeied but as wicked Princes sometimes doe had contemned both the excommunication and the absolution Ambrose could goe no further at all But because the godly Prince was carefull for his soule lest hee beeing bound too long with this spirituall chaine might through the long imprisonment gather filthinesse
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
of the Church haue authority as well ouer body and goods as ouer the soules of all Christians which no sober man before him did euer so much as dreame of But with what vnhandsomnesse and incongruence hee deduceth this out of the reasons laid before by him I will say open in the next Chapter But he applieth to his purpose the Argument taken from the person of Elias and his actions in this manner Elias by the sword of the spiriâ—e that is to say by his praiers commaunded the fire to fall from heauen and to destroy those fifty who despising the authority of the Prophets said vnto him in the name of an earthly power Man of God the King hath commaunded thee to descend c. and in respect of the earthly power contemned that spirituall power which Elias was indued with all And in scorne saluted him Homo Dei man of God And in this manner hee goeth forward thus Could noâ— Elias at whose call fire deseended from heauen and deuoured the fifty men say to some Prince and Magistrate if he had been present Sir because these souldiers doe contemne me and in me God whose Prophet I am runne vpon them and kill them or could not an earthly sword haue executed the same office which the fire from heauen did performe If fire quâ—th he be the more noble element then the earth yea or then the mettals which are digged out of the earth I see not but that he who called fire from heauen to satisfie his commaundement might not much more haue bidden the Magistrate who beareth the sword to draw out his sword for him against any King in the world whatsoeuer For which opinion of his this firmament or strength onely is set down by him That it skils not much amongst wise men what is done by those things which are alike in moment and waight I will not heere adde the fourth fifth argument which he vseth out of the sacred histories touching Ozia and Athalia because Bellarmine hath referred theÌ„ among the examples whereon wee must deale in their place But these are those Paraleipomena to which Bellarmine doth remit vs and which it is no wonder that he who is both a subtill and sharpe disputer and a vehement Oratour did onely lightly report but did not transferre into his owne worke seeing they doe abound with so many and notorious faults that a man would thinke they were written not by a Diuine and a man exercised in the Scriptures but by some prophane Smatterer abusing intemperately Diuinity and the Scriptures so very little is there in those things which he assumeth in them for argument which is consonant and agreeing with the subiect in question CHAP. XXXVI First then Sanders is mistaken and is very farre wide in this that he imagineth that the Synagogue had any stroke in the abdication of Saul For it is most manifest that the whole businesse was commanded denounced and in the issue accomplished and executed by the extraordinarie iudgement and commandement of God from whom is all raigne and power without any ordinarie iurisdiction of the Priests or of the Synagogue whereby it is cleere that the comparison of the Church of Christ the Synagogue or of Samuel and the Pope is very impertinently and ignorantly made by him in this point For although we confesse that which is the truth that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is no lesse yea that it is faire more then of the Synagogue yet therfore I meane out of the comparison of the power authoritie of each Church it doth not follow that the Pope may depriue a King neglecting or contemning the Commandements of God of the right of his Kingdome instal another in his place because the Synagogue was neuer endued with that power For it is no where read in the Old Testament that the Synagogue of the Iewes or the Hâ—â—â— Priest thereof for the time did abrogate the Kingdome from any lawfull King of Israel of Iudaea being neuer so wickeâ— distnate and ciuell or depriued him of the â—ight oâ— the Kingdome as hee saith and substituted another in his place Whence it falles out that no argument from thence nor no example may bee drawne in the new Law I let passe that Samuel although he were a great Prophet yet hee was not the chiefe Priest nay not a Priest at all but onely a Leuite who therefore could doe nothing against Saul by an ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction much lesse by the authoritie of a secular iudgement because he had publikely laid that downe before when the people demanded a King Therefore Samuel in the execution of this businesse did onely performe a bare ministerie almost against his will and striuing both with praiers and teares against the same and hauing receiued a speciall charge he discharged an extraordinarie embassie being sent from the Lord as the Messenger of his diuine iudgement And that appeareth by this that when he came to the King he said Giue me leaue and I will tell thee what the Lord hath spoken to me by night Therefore he may forbeare this argument which is to small purpose drawne from the extraordinarie ministery of Samuel and the reiection of Saul in regard that the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or Pope hath no comparison or proportion no conueniencie or similitude with the same God presently reiected Saul and tooke the Kingdome from his posteritie but he suffered other Kings who seemed to be much more wicked then Saul to raigne ouer his people and to conuey the Kingdome to their children So hath it seemed good in his eies God the Lord of reuenge hath done freely and he hath done all whatsoeuer he would neither is any other reason to belong it He hath mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will be hardneth Neither may any man say vnto him Why hast thou made me thus Must we beleeue the same of the Church or of the Pope They haueth it certaine limits and bounds which they cannot passe The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by Lawes saith Ioh de 〈…〉 And therefore it is not permitted neither to the Church nor to the Ruler thereof the Pope by an absolute libertie and after the maner of God to determine of all kingdomes and businesses and to dispose of all things at their pleasure That onely is lawfull for them which is comprehended in the holy writings or traditions of the Apostles teaching their authoritie Which seeing it is so there is none that hath any skill in reasoning but may plainly see that the argument deriued from those things which Samuel did can by no meanes be concluded to establish the Popes authoritie vnlesse it be deduced either from the ordinarie power of the Synagogue wherein notwithstanding Samuel was not the chiefe to the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or from the extraordinarie ministerie of Samuel to the extraordinarie