these two powers whose opinion is set downe in this maner in a letter of S. Athanasius written to them which lead a solitarie life God hath committed a gouernment to you to vs he hath entrusted the matters which belong to the Church and as hee who with enuious eies maligneth your gouernment doth resist the diuine ordinance so take you heed least by drawing to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you prooue guilty of a great fault It is written Giue to Caesar those things which be Caesars and to God which are Gods Therefore neither is it lawfull for vs to exercise an earthly empire nor you being Emperour haue any power ouer our sacrifices and holy things From hence it is I meane from this distinction of powers that Innocentius and Panormitanus doe conclude that Lay-men are not bound to obey the Pope in those things which are not Spirituall or which concerne not the soule as they speake vnlesse they liue in those territories which bee subiect to the temporall Iurisdiction of the Pope And so ought that oath of the Profession of faith in the Bull of Pius the fourth to be restrained where it is said To the Bishop of Rome c. I promise and sweare true obedience when he is of the Laity that sweareth Bozius notwithstanding denieth this distinction of these powers and affirmeth full vndiscreetly that the temporall is contained vnder the Ecclesiastical and is directly subiect to it But hee perceaued that which was pressed with the euident confession of the holy Bishop Nicolas 1. who in a letter to Michael the Emperour teacheth that although in times past Heathen Emperours were called the chiefe Bishops yet when it came to the true King and Bishop neither did the Emperour draw to himselfe the interest of the Bishop nor she Bishop vsurped the name of the Emperour because the same Mediator of God and men the man Christ Iesus did so by their proper functions and seuerall priuiledges distinguish the duties of both the powers willing that his proper offices should be aduanced by a wholesome humilitie not by humane pride be againe drowned into hell that both Christian Emperours might stands in need of Bishops for eternall life and Bishops might vse imperiall laws for the course of temporall things onely c. Therefore when as he saw by the testimony of a chiefe Bishop that both the Powers were so disioined and seuered by their proper actes dignities and duties that neither the temporall power might without iniurie vsurpe the rights of the Spirituall power nor contrary this fine witted gentleman that he might vnwinde himselfe out of this brake he slips me into a blinde turning of an interpretation which was neuer heard of before wherein hee shewes himselfe very ridiculous nor so cunning in inuenting as vnaduised in deliuering the same * But we must marke saith he in these words of Nicclaus first that he doth not affirme that the Laye power is seuered from the Spirituall that an Ecclesiasticall power may not haue it but that a Secular man may not haue an Ecclesiasticall power therefore he saith that these powers are distinguished not all together as though one were not subordinate and subiect to the other but he affirmeth that they are distinguished by their Offices Actions and dignitie and with all when he had said neither did the Emperor draw to himselfe the Priueledges of the Bishopricke he said not againe the Bishop drew not to himselfe the priueledges of the Emperor He saith not the Priueledges or Rights as Nauarra in Cap. Nouit hath reported falsly nor as I thinke marking what he said but saith Nomen the name What should a man doe with such a myching bird-catcher of wordes who a man would thinke studied to make Pope Nicolas not a Pastor but an impostor and that he should seeme not to instruct but to mocke the Emperour for what I pray you was this conference betweene the Pope and the Emperour of wordes and not of things of the name and not of the right and power or did the Bishop write these letters that by the obscure doubtfulnesse or change of a word he might entrap the Emperour and not rather that hee might instruct him by a plaine discourse of truth It is a speech of a good conceipt that lawes are imposed by deedes and not by wordes and this letter is in a manner as an Ecclesiasticall law What then Nicolaus saith Neither did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour it is as much as if he had said he vsurped not the Right or the Rights of the Emperor which Nauarrus the most learned both Canonist and Deuine obseruing and others of all ages that were exercised in those knowledges haue taken Nomen and Iura for the the same in that Epistle which notwithstanding either of ignorance or malice are wrested quite from the meaning by this hunter of words this way and that way as please him This is not to know the lawes to vnderstand their wordes and not their force and meaning But this interpretation of Bozius is refelled by this that the Pope by these wordes as the Pagan Emperours were also called the chiefe Bishops that is named did not meane an empty and a bare name as though Emperours were onely named Bishops but the right and office because together with the names they retained all the rights and offices and dignities that were incident to each power which seeing it is most true and Bozius dare not deny it it followeth certainly that either no contrary comparison nor perfect difference between the Popes and Emperours of these and those times is in that place designed by Nicolaus or by the name of the Emperour that he vnderstands all the Imperiall right that as after Christ acknowledged and receiued the Emperours assumed not to themselues any more the rights of the Bishopricke so neither Bishops the rights of Emperours To conclude if the Pope had in this place signified that hee refused onely the name of the Emperour but retained the right and power might not the Emperour iustly reply that he stands not so much vpon the Name as vpon the Right what should he doe with the Name if another carie away his Right and Power hee had certainly said it neither would he haue put vp so foule an indignitie if hee had beleeued that any such thing might bee gathered out of Pope Nicolas his wordes But saith Bozius he said not their powers were wholy distinguished I confesse and that not without speciall care lest hee should giue to the Popes flatterers or any other busie Companions an easie occasion of Cauill and Exception For Bozius would interpret that word call together as farre as belonged to Execution therefore hee spake more and more plainly to wit that those powers are seuered and parted in their proper Actions Offices and Dignities that he might manifestly shew that by no meane they are ioyned together and that one is not subiect
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
is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
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
Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest as the aduersary dreameth because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry and Childerike who succeeded no lesse lawfully but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people these she might Thus he in which words he yeeldeth a double reason of the diuersity wherefore the Church endured Constantius Iulianus Valens Valentinianus the yonger Anastasius Heraclius and other hereticall Princes but did not forbeare Leo Isaurus Henry IV. Childerike and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing One forsooth because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to haue been ready rather to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes The other because the Church or the Pope could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius Iulianus Valens and the rest of that sort aboue mentioned but as for Leo Henry Childerike and the others she could therefore them she endured these she endured not But let vs see if both the reasons of this diuersity be not false and grounded vpon mere and strange falshoods and yet none hath assigned any better nor as I thinke can assigne any saue only that which doth vtterly ouerthrow the cause of the aduersaries which is that the Church did tolerate those former Emperors and Princes because as yet that blind ambition was not crept into her by which the succeeding Popes caried away with greedinesse of glory vsurped that temporall iurisdiction whereof we speake Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spirituall iurisdiction which they exercised with indifferency vpon all persons did wholly forbeare the temporall power which they did know that it belonged not vnto them so recommending the cause of the Church to the iudgement of God did with humility and patience expect the conuersion or confusion of wicked Princes But I returne to the reasons giuen by this Author that we may see how faulty they are And indeed to deale plainly his former reason or cause of diuersity seemeth to me very vnworthy and vnfit to be alleadged by any Catholike much lesse by a Diuine which I euen for this cause haue much a doe to read without teares For what are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be souldiors then Martyrs or to defend the law of God the Church rather by swords then by sermons But he saith not so may some say What then either he saith nothing or all together some such thing For his meaning is that the difference of these and those former times as touching the coertion of Princes consisteth in this that then the Bishops ought rather to haue been fit to vndergoe Martirdome then to reduce Princes into order Which being so who can not easily perceiue by his proper iudgement and naturall logike that either this reason stands not vpon dissimilia that is termes of vnlikenesse or that is to be placed in the other part which we haue set downe And yet I dare boldly affirme that there neuer time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselues to Martirdome The lion euery where gapeth for his pray the wolfe stands watching at the sheepfolds most mighty Kings and Princes many Nations and people buckle themselues and arme against the flocke of Christ and doth this man thinke that the time doth not require that the Bishops should not expose themselues to Martirdome and lay downe their liues for the sheepe what when the Church flourished and was spread thorough the whole world the Bishops ought to hope and looke for nothing but Martirdome and now when matters are come to this passe that the Church is grieuously tossed and tumbled and as it were crouded into a corner of Europe may the Bishops bend their mindes without all feare of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martirdome what because in these daies they maintaine great traines and retinues and troopes of horse and foote to defend themselues their liues and Persons and by force and armes to deliuer the Church from the iniurie of so many Princes and people that spoile her Or rather because now adaies very few vndertake the Bishoprickes with that minde and condition that they should be encombred and vexed with those troubles either of minde or bodie which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith but that they may passe their life with case and pleasure and that they may aduance and magnifie their owne house and bloud by the goods of the poore and Patrimonie of Christ Or lastly because that being hirelings and mercenarie Pastors they doe beleeue that it is very lawfull for them when the Wolfe comes and teares the Flocke to take their heeles and to auoide Martirdome I doe not bring forth these things to cast iniurie or enuie vpon the Ecclesiasticall order which I euer reuerenced and honoured from a child Neither doe I doubt but there are many who doe keepe most carefully and watchfully the flocke committed to them being ready vpon all occasions euen with their bodies to defend the sheepe committed to their keeping and with their bloud to seale the confession of Christ. But I speake all this in reproofe of the former answere and with all to their shame who now in euery place affect the dignities of the Church without any purpose of life fit for the Church but that they themselues may liue brauely and gallantly and that they may consume that wealth which the puritie of an Ecclesiasticall life doth well deserue vpon vses either vnlawfull or surely not necessarie very dishonestly and to the great scandall of the Church O the times O the manners of men The greatest part of the Christian common weale within these hundred yeeres or there abouts is vtterly perished Euen by this very meane that many Bishops and Priests being more forward to armes then to Martirdome haue vnaduisedly followed the meaning of the former answere supposing forsooth that which was not so that Heresie might easily bee oppressed by armes while themselues in the meane time held their owne course of life that is cherished their owne former pleasure and slothfulnesse Therefore they saw the Wolfe comming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolues themselues I speake no secrets now Scotland and England are my witnesses and other Countries which are slipped into* heresie wherein although many resisted manfully yet the greatest part of the Church-men did not endure so much as the first assault but presently in shamefull manner put in practise their treason and defection partly that they might enioy the fauour to liue freely which was both promised and permitted vnto them by the Nouators partly least that they being depriued of all their present meanes should fall to beggerie whereas if like those first Fathers in times past they had
twentie yeeres and rent the Church asunder with a continuall schisme may be an argument to vs that that Decree was not made by a diuine inspiration but by an humane passion nor that it proceeded from an ordinarie Iurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolike but either from an extraordinarie ambition or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeale of him that held the Sea For it is not likely that God who is the Author of Iustice and protector of the Church and who hath made the first executions of the spirituall power of the Church exceeding fearefull by present miracles and horrible effects would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinarie assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authoritie and power of his Church especially seeing he was with so many praiers inuocated by the Bishop for his helpe and the Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication in these wordes Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles and by your authoritie interpoâ—ed confirme that which I haue said that all men may now at the last understand if you can binde and loose in heauen that you are also as well able it earth to take away and giue Empires Kingdomes Principalities and whatsoeuer else mortall men may haue Let Kings now learne by this Kings example and all the Princes of the world what you are able to doe in heauen and how much you are in fauour with God and heereafter let them be afraid to contemne the commandements of holy Church But execute with speed vpon Henrie that all men may vnderstand that this Child of iniquitie falleth out of his Kingdome not by chance but by your care Yet this I would intreat at your handes that he being led by repentance may at your request obtaine fauour of the Lord in the day of iudgement These and such like praiers being powred out to God and the Princes of the Apostles and Curses and Imprecations in solemne maner cast vpon Henrie who would not thinke that God who by his Apostles preserues his Church with a continuall protection would not easily suffer himselfe to be intreated and would not presently heare this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authoritie of the Church to be made manifest if any such authoritie had belonged to the Church Wheras notwithstanding cleane contrarie euery thing fell out crosse and vnhappie against the Pope and against the authors and fautors of the Popes partie whilest Henrie in the meane time triumphed and held his Empire still for that which he suffered from his sonne at last after fiue and twentie yeeres vnder a shew of religion as Frisingensis saith that makes little or nothing to this matter This was a pretext onely for a wicked sonne who was sicke of the Father before the time but the true cause was ambition and the burning desire of rule quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children and contrariwise as wee haue shewed at large other where One said excellently well patris longâ—oâ— vit a malo filio seruit us videtur CHAP. XI BY this as I suppose it is euident enough that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other wicked Princes because she then distrusted her might and strength nor because she could not reduce them to order without the great hurt of the people for indeed she might with more ease and lesse hurt to the people haue chastised those ancient Princes Then not onely Henry the fourth from whose businesse so lasting a schisme did spring but either Otho the fourth or Frederick the second or Philip Pulcher or Lewes the eleuenth or Iohn Nauarre or others against whom the Bishops being puffed vp with the successe of their affaires drew foorth their Sentences of Excommunication and depriuation of Kingdomes not for heresie nor for the euill gouernment of State nor at the request of the subiects but euen inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections I meane their priuate hatred To conclude not for that the state of the Church in that age would haue her Bishops more readie than in this time to suffer martyrdome for then the Church was in very safe estate and as we say sailed in the hauen as hauing been now anciently founded vpon the Apostolike constitutions and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs Yea such then was the state of the Church that there was much lesse need for Bishops to be readie for martyrdome than at this time for that so great a multitude then being as it were sprinckled with the fresh blood of the martyrs did in a maner sauour of nothing but martyrdome that the Pastour was no lesse admonished of his dutie by the example of the flocke than the seuerall persons of the people by the example of the Pastour But now ô lamentable case the case is quite otherwise the Church is tossed with most grieuous tempests and only not ouerwhelmed as yet with the furie of heretikes manie euen of those who desire to be called Catholikes being so affected that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles much lesse vndergoe death for true religion wherefore that life and heat may be giuen to that lukewarmnesse and that men might be stirred vp to the readiest way and as it were the shortest cut for their health who seeth not that there is need of Bishops to shew the way both by word and example and both to compose them themselues and to exhort others rather to martyrdome than to armes and insurrections to which we are prone by nature Who would not iudge that the fatherly pietie of Clement the eight ioyned with excellent wisdome whereby he endeuoureth to reduce to anâ—itie and to keepe in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church than the martiall furies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleuenth wherby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italie France Germanie Spaine and all 〈…〉 together by the cares 〈…〉 be thus surely we must needs confâ—â—◠〈…〉 ancient fathers of the Church 〈…〉 fault in that they did not only suffer 〈…〉 they might easily those guiltie and 〈…〉 of the saith but also courtcously reuerenced them and honoured them with regall titles and dignities or els we must needs thinke that they spared those maner of Princes for the reuerence of Maiestie the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone or surely we must beleeue that besides the reasons deliuered by the aduersaries there is yet some better behinde which none hitherto hath brought forth nor euer will as I suppose For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous worke which he writ against Kings to elude the â—orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers As though saith he
produce wonderfull effects as euen at this day sometimes he vpon the like occasion doth produce among people which be newly won to Christ. CHAP. XXVI SEeing these matters stand thus the way is made more easie for vs to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation being now already opened by vs and retorted backe vpon himselfe for they fall to ground partly thorow their owne fault and weaknesse and partly because they are not wel set vpon the foundation whereon they are built For first out of that that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Woolues that be may driue them away by any meane he can he reasoneth in this manner Woolues which destroy the Church of God are Heretikes Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolfe that is of a Christian become an Heretike the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also command the People that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of his gouernment ouer his subiects But he is deceiued or doth deceiue vs by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion For in that he saith that the Pastor of the Church may driue away an Heretike Prince by excommunication that is very true and is deriued out of that principle by a necessary consecution But that he may onely marry that he ought not to do it but at such times when as he may coÌ„modiously do it without scandall and hurt to the Church as I haue de-declared before For where there is danger least the peace of the Church may be dissolued and least The member of Christ be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes the seuere mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary that is to say is wholy to be left to the iudgement and punishment of God for Counsell of separation that is of excommunication are both vaine and hurtfull and Sacrilegious because they become both impious and preud and doe more disturbe the weake good ones then correct the sâ—urdy ill ones This is the doctrine of S. Angustine approoued by the common voice of the Church whereby it is euident how rasâ—ly and vnwisely certaine Popes haue separated from the Church by excommunication most mighty Emperours and Kings with the great scandall of the whole world and dissolution of the peace of the Church whom it had beene farre better to haue tolerated and to haue discouered their faults onely and with mourning to haue bewailed them in the Church For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept and for the saluation of the weake brethren and such as now were fed onely with milke least the members of the body of Christ should be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes Therefore the Popes might doe this but they ought not Non omne quod licet honestum est Very well saith the Apostle omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt Therefore the first part of the conclusion is true that the Pastor of the Church may driue away heretike Princes by excommunication But that which followeth and withall command the people that they follow him not hath two eares to hold by as I may say with Epictetus the one sound the other broken I meane a twofold vnderstanding the one true the other faulty For if he speake in this sense that it is the duty of the Pope to command the subiects that they follow not an heretike Prince in his heresie that they run not with him in his madnesse nor admit and swallow downe his damnable errors for that they suffer not themselues to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true and is deriued very truly out of the same principle and fountaine and this is the best sense of those words For there is nothing so conuenient and comely for the pontificall dignity and the whole order Ecclesiastike nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people as that according to the patterne of the ancient fathers of the Church the principall Bishop himselfe first and the rest of his brethren all of them should preach the word should be instant in season and out of season conuince intreat rebuke in all patience and doctrine That like Faithfull witnesses and good seruants whom the Lord hath set ouer his family they may so worke both by word and example that the people follow not the errors of their King nor either dissemble nor forsake the Catholike faith thorow any either threatnings or allurements of the King which because most of them either do not all at this day or at the least much more slackly then they ought and that duty which it becomes them to performe themselues they put ouer to certaine begging Friers what maruell is it if many in our age haue been caried away as it were with a whirle wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds into the toiles of the diuell This as I haue said is the best sense But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speake in this sense both the cause which he hath in hand and this clause following Ac proinde prinare eum dominio in subditos doth plainly declare Therefore he giues vs the broken care of the pot I meane the corrupt and the very worst sense of those words forsooth that the pastor of the Church may command the subiect that they execute no commandement of such a Prince and that by any meanes they yeeld him no reuerence obedience honor in those matters which belong euen to a temporall and ciuill authority And therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects But this is false and flat contrary to the law of God and precepts of the Apostles Feare the Lord my sonne and the King Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and powers to obey their commandement Be subiect to euery creature for God or to the King as soueraigne feare God honor the King and diuers of that kind which things seeing they be spoken of wicked Kings and persecutors of the Church for at that time no other ruled in the world they can not but belong to the worst and vnworthiest kind of Kings Therefore this is that which I said before that either he deceiues of purpose or is deceiued by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion For it is true that a Pastor of the Church may driue away an heretike Prince by excommunication but it is false that he may depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects For obedience due to Kings and all superiors is both by 〈◊〉 of nature and of God how then can the Pope by any meane dispense with people against the same For they that with more diligence and exact care doe search the scriptures doe obserue a too fold kind of the precepts of Paul one is of those by which he publisheth the law of God which he was sent to
long as the Church serued vnder heathen Princes And this is the ground of our demonstration with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner beene set down and granted that is to say That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest because hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill the Law And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith it is certaine that all Clergie men continued in the same order and ranke as farre as concerned temporall subiection wherein they were before when their Princes liued in their infidelitie because the Law of Christ depriueth no man of his particular interest as hath beene said And in that regard priuileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergie which they should not haue needed at all if the Clergie had not remained and that by absolute right as before vnder the authoritie and iurisdiction of Princes These things are so cleere and plaine and so witnessed and proued by so many testimonies and monuments that it may be thought a needlesse paines to remember them in this place or to adde any thing to them Therefore let vs see that which followeth I meane let vs see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles by a manifest demonstration and necessarie conclusion It is in no place recorded by any Writer that the Princes who haue endowed the Clergie with these priuileges and exemptions did set them so free from themselues that they should not be further subiect vnto them nor acknowledge their Maiestie or obey their Commandement Reade those things which are written of those priuileges you shall not finde the least testimonie of so great immunitie amongst them all They only granted to the Clergie that they should not bee conuented before secular Magistrates but before their proper Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Iudges Now this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authoritie of the Princes themselues or to offer preiudice to their iurisdiction and authority if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergie mens causes in cases which are not meerely spirituall Nay Princes could not nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergie liuing in their kingdomes that libertie and immunitie that they should not bee subiect to them in their temporall authoritie and when they offend bee iudged and punished by them but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principalitie and gouernment For it is a propertie inseparable to Princes to haue power to correct offenders and lawfully to gouerne all the members of the Common-wealth I meane all his Citizens and subiects with punishing and rewarding them And as in a naturall bodie all the members are subiect to the head and are gouerned and directed by it so as it must needs seeme a monstrous bodie where are seene superfluous members and such as haue no dependencie of the head euen so in this politicke bodie it is very necessarie that all the members should bee subiect to the Prince as to the head and bee gouerned by him that is to receiue reward or punishment from him according as each of them deserue in the state But the Clerickes as the aduersaries confesse besides that they are Clerickes are also Citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill Common-wealth which is true and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdome and obtaine the first place Therefore as Citizens and parts of the ciuill Common-wealth they are subiect to the Prince neither can they although the Prince would but be subiect to him in temporalties and otherwise either were he no Prince or they no Citizens Therefore it is a foolish thing to suppose and imagine that a Clergy man being conuented for any cause whatsoeuer so it be not meerely spirituall may auoid the Palace of the soueraigne Prince or of him to whom the Prince vpon certaine knowledge hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof For in that Princes doe verie seldome heare the causes of the Clergie that argueth want not of power but of disposition Hence is it I meane out of this temporall authoritie of secular Princes ouer the Clergie that in our time Charles the V. being Emperour caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colonie to appeare before him to cleere himselfe of the crimes which the Clergie and the Vniuersitie said against him and that in many places the Princes haue reserued to themselues certaine offenses of the Clergie to be specially punished and doe commit the same to the knowledge and iudicature of their officers as are those crimes which are called Priuilegiate in France as of Treason bearing of Armes counterset money peace broken and the like neither are wee to thinke that heereby any iniurie is done to the Clergie or that the Ecclesiasticall libertie is in any manner hindred or diminished Many haue Ecclesiasticall libertie in their mouthes who know not a â—ot what it is We will in another place declare more plainly what it is and in what points it consisteth Seeing these things stand thus euery man I thinke may see that all the immunitie of Clergie men as well for their persons as for their causes and goods haue proceeded from secular Princes but not as some imagine is either due by the Law of God or granted them by the Pope or Canons For that which Bellarmine bringeth both for a supplement and a reason that he might proue how that the Pope and Councels did simply exempt Clerickes from the temporall iurisdiction viz. That the Imperiall Law ought to yeeld to the Canon Law that is not generally true but then only when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticke but the subiection or immunitie of Clergie men in ciuill affaires is not a matter meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but rather ciuill and temporall in which cases the sacred Canons doe not disdaine to come after the ciuill Lawes Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after That the Pope may command the Emperour ouer those things which belong to the authoritie of the Church As if hee should say that the Pope may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church For euen by this we may discerne that this is false that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes and Officers of Princes Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church for that was no lesse before but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring Hence arose that question whether it were lawfull for Princes euery one within his territories without any iniurie to the church in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the
exemption of the Clergie from the intermedling of secular Iudges and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law and to the state wherein it stood at the first Whereof when I was asked not long since I answered nothing as then but that it seemed to mee a strange question and of a hard deliberation to resolue For although it haue beene propounded by diuers yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away which the Pope himselfe and all Princes are accustomed to obserue that is if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth or the cause hath failed and is gone for which they were granted at the first or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption doth continue and is like to continue for euer that is to say the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them Thus much they But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi if God giue mee life and strength CHAP. XXXIIII NOw therefore I returne to the argument which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter and J answere that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer much lesse of a kingdome For it is as certaine as certaine may be that Excommunication by which only froward stubborn Christians are separated excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull and communion of the Church doth take from no body their inheritance and temporall goods Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause which the Prince hath by his lawes especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods In which case not the Pope but the Prince not the excommunication but the constitution of the ciuil law doth take goods away from the person excommunicate The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right no not from a Clergy man though hee bee excommunicated and deposed or degraded by himselfe And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods by excommunication alone being once passed against him either by the law or by any man seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner And so excommunication which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow For that the person excommunicate although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace by washing his fault away with due repentance should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body c. Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous doe worke vppon the soules not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie as on the contrary the bodies of men and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority not of the Pope but of the Prince Seeing I say it is not the Pope that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and by the force and vertue of excommunication or other censure although the same bee iust and grieuous but the ciuill Prince onely who to pleasure the Church and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe to ordaine sometime one punishment sometime an other at his owne pleasure vpon the contemners of the Church how then can it be that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe kingdom principality iurisdiction authority and all dominion who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters and is not subiect to any ciuil pains Is it so sure and certaine that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes then ouer priuate persons or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world then priuate persons so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane I demaund of these men if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day then hee had in times past before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment And if he haue greater authority whence I pray you should he haue it from God or from men surely neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth For will any man euer say that is in his right wits that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes from the time that he beganne to raigne and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head or if he should say it were he able to make it good by any reason or authority much lesse hath any such authority accreâ—ed to him from men because as it is commonly said Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem And although Christian Kings and Emperours who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ such as only professe the orthodoxall faith yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope none of them but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise the same is to be reckoned as an exception by which the rule in non exceptis is more stronglie confirmed Out of this foundation which is laid vpon most certaine reason a very good argument may bee framed in this manner The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe But before he was a ten porall Prince he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way Ergo Neither hath he now any ouer them The truth of the Proposition is so plaine that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments but the Aslumption is proued thus
conniuencie of the ancient Popes and the vanitie thereof discouered Chap. 12. That the Pope hath no authoritie not so much as indirectly ouer Christian Princes in temporall matters proued both by the speciall prerogatiues of an absolute Prince and also by the grounds of the Catholikes and the inconueniencies insuing of the admittance thereof Chap. 13. He vndertakes Bellarmine his proofes propounds his first maine reason with the Media whereby Bellarmine inforceth the same Chap. 14. He taketh away the ground which Bellarmine laid for the strengthening of his first Proposition and layeth open the lightnes and vanitie thereof Chap. 15. He amplifieth the answere to the last ground laid by Bellarmine and explaneth in what termes of Relation or Subordination the Powers both Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe stand Secondly he sheweth that Clergie persons are as well and fully to be reputed the subiects of Temporall Princes as Lay men are Thirdly that the Clergie first receiued their Priuiledges from the fauour of Princes and that the Pope himselfe as successor of Peter must necessarily bee subiect to a Temporall Prince but that hee is a Temporall Prince in Italie himselfe which State also he receiued at the first by the Bountie of Temporall Princes Chap. 16. He detecteth a plaine fallacie in a reason of Bellarmines which in Schooles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sheweth at large that Temporall Princes haue submitted themselues to the Popes as their Spiritual Fathers but not so absolutely but that they euer reserued their Ciuill authoritie firme and vntouched to themselues Chap. 17. He answereth Bellarmines second reason and prooueth that this vnlimited power of disposing the Temporalties of Princes is neither belonging nor necessarie for the Church and that the Church florished more the first three hundred yeeres without the same authoritie then it hath done since certaine later Popes vsurped the same Chap. 18. He discusseth more at large the sense of Bellarmine his latter argument to proue the Popes soueraigntie ouer Kings in Temporalties and bewraies the inconsequence and vanitie thereof Chap. 19. He discusseth a passage in S. Bernard touching the Materiall sword and the words of Christ Ecce duo glâ—dij and concludeth that the Temporall sword is neither proper to the Pope nor subiect to the Spirituall Chap. 20. He encountreth Bellarmine his third reason and the proâ—â—es of the same Wherein he excepts especially against this Proposition of Bellarmine that it is as dangerous to chuse a Heathen Prince as not to depose him that is not a Christian but the Elench or fallacie of the whole argument he plainly discouereth Chap. 21. He insisteth further on the point Whether Christians ought to suffer ouer them a King that is not a Christian. The text of the 1. Cor. 6. is discussed Of going to law vnder infidell Princes or Iudges and Bellarmine his fraud and captiousnes discouered in abusing that place to serue his turne Secondly a place of Thomas Aquinas examined touching the point of taking from Heathen Princes their Right Thirdly that it was not want of strength but meere Religion and Conscience that kept the Primitiue Church in obedience by Bellarmines own grounds Chap. 22. He answereth Bellarmines second maine Reason taxeth the same both for matter in truth and forme in Logick and giues a right supplie to the deficiencie of the same by which the force of the same reason is taken away Chap. 23. He taketh in hand Bellarmines third argument which is drawne from a comparison of the bond of Mariage with the bond of the Obedience due from the subiect to the Prince and both shewes how weake it is in it selfe and how strong against him that brings it Chap. 24. He examineth a fourth Reason of Bellarmines taken from the forme of an Oath which Princes are supposed to take when they were receiued into the Church and sheweth that nothing can be made thereof to proue Bellarmines assertion for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Christian Princes Chap. 25. He examineth the last reason of Bellarmine grounded on the words of Christ to Peter Pasce oues meas the which reason from these words if it haue any edge at all he turneth the same backe vpon Bellarmine himselfe Chap. 26. He prooueth that Bellarmine is deceiued or doth deceiue of purpose in his reason drawne from the comparison of the Pope as a shepheard and an heretike Prince as a wolfe 2. What is the dutie of the shepheard in case the Prince doe of a sheepe become a wolfe Chap. 27. He debateth the power of the Pope to dispense what is the nature of those lawes wherewith the Pope may dispense But that he hath no colour to dispense with the obedience of a subiect to his Prince The madnesse of the Canonists that giue too vast a fulnes of power to the Pope Chap. 28. The Examination of a Rescript of Pope Innocent the third which hath these words Not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate Which words many haue laboured to reconcile but haue missed Chap. 29. But the Author giues the resolution excusing the Popes meaning and blaming the words to answere the Canonists Chap. 30. That the Pope although he might dispense with the oath of a Subiect yet can he not dispense with his Obedience to his Prince to which he is bound by the law of God and Nature which are greater then his Oath 2. The dangerous consequence to all Christian Princes by this power of the Pope called Indirect if he should haue it 3. What the People ought to answere the Pope or his Ministers in case they should bee by them solicited against their lawfull Prince Chap. 31. The error of the later Popes in taking this high and headlong course to depose Princes what ill blood it hath bred in the Church proued by miserable experience in Germanie France England and hath brought the See of Rome both into hatred and contempt with all Christian Princes Chap. 32. That if the Prince play the wilde Ramme the Pope may correct him but as a spirituall Pastor onely by spirituall meanes 2. That neither the Prince can auoide or decline the Popes iudgement in cases Spirituall nor any Clergie person the Kings in cases Temporall 3. That the Clergie receiued those Exemptions and Immunities which at this day they enioy through all Christendome not from the Pope nor from Canons of Councels but by the bountie and indulgencie of secular Princes 4. The explanation of the Canons of certaine famous Councels which the aduersaries alleage in their behalfe and yet vpon the matter make rather against them 5. The notorious corruption practised by Gratianus in peruerting the words of two seuerall Canons flat against the Originall which corruption also Bellarmine very strangely followeth because it seemeth to make to his purpose Chap. 33. He propoundeth and proueth a paradoxe of his owne That all the Clergie men in the world of what degree or ranke soeuer are
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
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
depend did heape and lay vpon his only person all the power which is in the vniuersall world with these allurements and inuitations the Popes who of their owne accord ran with speed enough toward honor and greatnesse were now much more enflamed as it were with certaine new firebrands of ambition and aspiring thoughts For all how many soeuer held that sea lawfully gouerned the Church with an authority equall to Peter but not all of them burning with the zeale of Peter gouerned it with equall disposition to him Nay I can not write it without griefe of heart it is certaine that many crept into that place by violence and villany others did breake into it and defiled the most holy Chaire with the filthinesse of their liues and behauiour others also who were aduanced to the height of that dignitie burned with an ambitious desire of ruling and out of their emulation and enuie against secular Kings and Princes endeuoured by all deuise and cunning to enlarge the bounds of their gouernment which in the beginning was meerely spirituall with the encrease of temporall Iurisdiction and authoritie Which affectation although at the first diuers supposed to be a grace and ornament to that great dignitie which the Vicar of Christ in earth and the successor of blessed Peter doth hold yet when some of them grew to that insolencie that they supposed it lawfull for them not onely to throw downe Kings from their Thrones but also to giue away great and goodly kingdomes for reward nay for a pray and to grant them to any that would seaze vpon them then surely there was no reasonable man but hee greatly misliked that vnreasonable pride of minde and either shed teares or conceiued great anger at the same Who was there at that time that did not either mourne inwardly or gnash his teeth in his head when that most proud Pope whom we mentioned before presumed so arrogantly to depriue that most mightie Monarch Philip the Faire of his kingdome and to bestow it together with the Empire vpon Albert Duke of Austria And that for no other reason in the world but because the King had laid his Legate by the heeles for threatning him in so saucie manner as he did as though by that Act the King of France whom a little before Innocent the 3 had ingeniously confessed that he had no superiour in temporall matters he had resigned his kingdome to the Pope as Client and Feudaire to him for so he denoūceth to the King by the Archdeacon of Narbona that the kingdome of Fraence was escheted to the Church of Rome for his Contumacie and violating of the law of Nations which speach of his what doth it else imply but that this kingdome in all mens iudgement the most free and flourishing kingdome of the world and by example and precedent thereof all other Christian kingdomes are as Benefices and Feudes of the Church of Rome and euen of the Pope himselfe seeing they could not otherwise escheate to that Church for Contumacie felonie as they tearme it vnlesse the direct temporall Dominion and fee of those kingdomes were in the same Church The other occasion of affecting so great a temporall Iurisdiction was presented by the sword of Excommunication the principall bulwarke of the spirituall gouernment which was so great terror to the world that the people durst neither neglect nor contemne the Popes curses being armed fortified howsoeuer by right or by wrong with the thunderbolt of Excommunication and this voice did vsually sound out of Pulpits That euery Excommunication although it were vniust was to be feared and that it belonged only to the Pope to iudge whether it were iust or vniust Besides that also that a man ought neither to eat nor to haue any Commerce with Excommunicate persons With which warnings and threatnings the Subiects of Princes excommunicate being for the most part terrified did fall from their Obedience and that which in Euils of this Nature was the worst of all the Pope partly by threatning of the like Curses partly by perswasions and gifts raised other Princes against a Prince that had been excommunicate by him For this cause those Princes vpon whom this malice of the Popes did sit so hard being wrapped in so many dangers on euery side and exposed to such a hazard of their estate made choise rather to pacific an angry Pope with the submission of their Crowne and Scepter and to redeeme their vexations then for their owne particular to embroyle all the world and to set all a fire with sedition and armes This short and compendious way had Popes to exanimate and daunt Kings and Princes with feare and almost to obtaine a victorie without striking stroke Notwithstanding many Princes of good resolution withstood such attempts and proffers of Popes and that so stiffely that the mischiefe which followed thereon turned rather to the Popes hinderance then the Prince But in this place the Reader may please to be aduertised that this Opinion which was so rife in euery mans mouth That euery Excommunication is to be feared ought to be vnderstood with this exception without that it manifestly appeare that it is vniust for then it is neither to be regarded nor feared so as the partie excommunicate be free from contempt and presumption for then it workes backwards and hurts not him against whom it is cast but him from whom it is cast Of which sort that Excommunication seemeth to be which is charged vpon Subiects because they obey their King or Prince being excommunicate in those things which belong to temporall Iurisdiction and doe not repugne the Commandements of God as shall hereafter be declared in a more conuenient place Besides neither is that alwaies true That we ought not to haue commerce or eat meate with Excommunicate persons for in this case it is not true where the danger is apparant least by such a separation some great mischiefe arise in the Church as vsually it doth when a Prince is excommunicate if his Subiects forbeare to communicate with him for there is neuer any Prince so much forlorne who cannot finde friends and clients by whose aide and armes hee may maintaine his cause although it be neuer so vniust with great hurt both to Church and common-weale whereof both in the memorie of our Forefathers and in our owne age there haue beene lamentable examples in Christian countries where I say any such thing is feared a separation of bodies is not necessarie But it is enough to be seuered from such in heart to be distinguished by life and manners for the preseruation of Peace and Unitie which is to bee preserued for the health of those which are weake as S. Austine excellently teacheth whereby it seemeth to follow that the Pope doth very vnaduisedly who forbids the Subiects communion and societie with their Prince so oft as no small both diuision and confusion hangeth ouer Church and Common-wealth yea that in such a Case
bent themselues to Martirdome they had in the very infancie destroied that most horrible Monster It may bee that the Author of that booke wrote such things of a good minde and without any fraud but surely it cannot bee that as the state of the Church affaires doth now stand they should be thought to be of any weight or moment For when as all the world almost was bound to the catholike Church velut nexu Manâ—ipioque as the Ciuilians say that is by the straitest bands of seruice and dutie euen then saith he were those times such as wherein the Bishops ought to haue beene more ready to haue suffered Martirdome then to haue enforced Princes to order and now when partly Infidels partly Heretikes haue spread ouer all Asia Afrike Europe one or two kingdomes onely excepted and that the Church is reduced almost to so great straites as euer it was he is not of the minde that the Bishops are required by the same necessitie to performe this dutie But surely this is too much either negligence in searching or indulgence in iudging and aduising neither ought a learned man and a Diuine as the Author seemeth to be to open to the Prelates of the Church who are as it were by a certaine storme caried into the same licence of liuing I say to open them so easie a way to forsake their dutie that they may suppose that they ought not to be so ready in these daies to Martirdome as to raise warre against euill Princes who it is certaine that without warres they can neuer be reduced into order and depriued of their kingdomes How much righter were they who whether they were the first of the Iesuites or of some other Order for I haue it onely by report presented themselues to the Cardinals at Rome and euen as they passed in state according to the manner did very sharpely reprooue their effeminatenesse their ryot their carelesnesse because that the most turbulent tempest of the Lutherane heresie being risen a little before that time taught the Prelates of the Church an other manner of life and required other fashions at their hands Therefore by these it is plaine that the Author of the answere is much deceiued in laying the reason of the difference in the dissimilitude of those ancient and these times as far as concernes the dutie state and condition of the Bishops and Prelates of the Church CHAP. VII THe other reason which he brings in is nothing better That the Church forsooth did not therefore beare with Constantius Valens and others for that they lawfully succeeded in the Empire no more than they did with Leo Henrie and Childerike which no lesse lawfully succeed but because she could not without hurt of the people correct them these she could For this is most false and I woonder that Bellarmine followed this reason elsewhere I say it is most false that the Church could not coerce and chastise them as easily as these I will not say more easily and without the hurt of the people whether she would haue attempted the matter by armes or vse some policie and the meane of some deuout person for at this time the whole world was Christian vnder Constantius as is euident by a letter of Constantine the Great to the Church recorded by Eusebius and Nicephorus and the greatest part of it orthodoxe so as they wanted not strength to oppresse the Emperour if they had held it lawfull or godly to take vp armes and contend against a lawfull Prince And truely it is credible that God would honour with a victorie both easily and not very costly for bloud his owne souldiers who should vndertake such a warre not of hatred or ambition but of a meere zeale to preserue the Church from ruine Moreouer there was a great multitude of monkes in Egypt and Lybia and an innumerable companie of other godly men of all sorts swarmed all ouer Asia and Europe amongst whom no doubt there were many of no lesse zeale then that wretch who murdered Henry the 3 king of France but furnished with more knowledge and grace whereby they prescribed a meane to inconsiderate headlong and rash zeale These men if it had beene lawfull might easily haue dispatched the Emperour without tumult of warre and noyse of armes and if so be the Church had had any power ouer him they might haue put the same in execution without any harme to the people What should I speake of Iulianus the successor of Constantius Could not the Church thinke you chasten him without any harme at all to the people when as being a shamefull Apostate and such a one as neuer was found amongst Christians he had his whole armie which he coÌ„manded consisting of Christians for euen after his death when Iouinianus being by generall consent chosen Emperor had proclaimed that himselfe was a Christian therfore that he would not coÌ„mand an army of Infidels the souldiers answered and generally cried out Neuer feare noble Emperour neither doe you refuse our gouernment as vnwoorthie for you are like to be a Commander of Christians who are brought vp in the discipline of pietie for we are Christians and those which be of the elder sort learned Constantinus his instruction the younger sort of Constantius Neither did he that died last rule so long time as could serue the turne to settle the poison in those few that had been circumuented abused by him I could wish that both the author of that booke the Reader of this would consider diligently Whether the Church seconded with so great power had not been able with ease to take that Emperour away without any harme of the people especially seeing the Emperors were at that time created by the souldiers alone who amongst those first times of Religion and hope of Martyrdome esteemed nothing more honorable then to beleeue and obey their Prelates deliuering to them the law and will of God Now if they had learned in those Schooles of the most holy Fathers that it was lawfull for the Church to depriue a wicked Prince of his gouernment and that it is lawfull for such subiects to take away and murder such a Ruler either by open force or secret practise there was nothing more easie for them then to depriue Iulian of his empire or take away his life and without any tumult or danger or publike losse to suffect an other at their pleasure in his place For now the right of nominating the Emperour was by long custome supposed to belong to the armie as also in very deed Iouinianus first and after Valentinianus both confessors of Christ after the death of of Iulianus were both aduanced to the Empire by the same armie Nay what will you say that although the whole armie would not haue conspired against the enemy of Christ yet those souldiers alone whom we mentioned out of Nazianzen in our books De Regno together with Iouinianus the Confessor would with little a doe haue
whence was that of his who was both King and Prophet against thee only haue I sinned And afterward For where as according to the Apostle it is a fearefull thing for euery man to fall into the hands of the liuing God yet for Kings who haue none aboue them besides him to feare it will be so much the more fearefull that they may offend more freely then others I can call in more and that very many to testifie the truth of this matter but what needs any more In the mouth of two or three witnesses let euery word stand If the assertors of the contrary opinion can bring forth so many testimonies of ancient fathers or indeed but any one wherein it is expresly written that the Church or the supreme head thereof the Bishop hath temporall power ouer secular Kings and Princes and that he may coerce and chastise them by temporall punishments any way either directly or indirectly or inflict any penalty either to the whole Kingdome or any part of it I shall be content that the whole controuersie shall be iudged on their side without any appeale from thence For indeed I desire nothing so much as that a certaine meane might be found by which the iudgement of the contrary side might be clearely confirmed But while I expect that in vaine in the meane time the truth caries me away with her conquered and bound into the contrary part Therefore I demand this now of the aduersaries whether it be likely that those ancient and holy fathers who haue written of the great power and immunity of Kings and Emperors were so negligent that of very carelesnesse they did not put in mind the Princes of their time of this temporall power of the Pope or that they left not this remembrance if they made any consigned vnder their hands in writing To the end that Princes should feare not only the secret iudgements of God but also the temporall iurisdiction of the Church and Pope by which they might be throwen downe from their seates so oft as the Church or the Pope who is the head thereof shall thinke it fit in regard of religion and the common weale certainly to be silent and to haue concealed so great a matter if it was true was to abuse Kings and Princes whom they had perswaded both by writings and preachings that they could be iudged by God only in temporall matters Or shall we imagine that they were so vnskilfull and ignorant of the authority of the Church that they knew not that it was indued with such a power Or in a word that they were so fearefull and narrow minded that they durst not tell the Princes that which they knew If none of these things can be imputed and charged on those ancient fathers why I pray you should we now embrace any new power which is grounded vpon no certaine either authority or reason but in these last ages deuised and thrust vpon the people by certaine fellowes who are seruâ—ly and basely addicted to the Pope and so lay a new and strange yoke vpon Princes CHAP. IX I Haue already plainly shewed that the last part of the second reason of the Aduersaries is most false which is That the Church therefore tolerated Constantius Iulianus Ualens and other heretike Princes because she could not chastise them without the hurt of the people Now will I prooue that the latter part is euen as false to wit that Henrie the IV. Emperour and other Princes ouer whom the later Popes haue arrogated to themselues temporall power might be coerced and chastised by the Church without hurt of the people Which before that I take in hand I doe hartely request not onely the friendly Reader but euen the Aduersaries themselues that the question being discussed they would weigh with themselues and iudge truly and sincerely whether it were not more easie for the Church to punish those first Princes by the aforesaid waies and meanes then to reduce into order the said Henry the IV by Rodolphus the Sweuian or Philip the Faire by Albert of Austria Of whom the one scorned and repressed the arrogancie of the Pope the other after diuers battles fought with diuers successe at the length in the last battle defeated his Competitor and Enemie whom the Pope had set vpon him and as for the Pope of whom he was excommunicate he banished him out of Rome and plagued him with perpetuall banishment With how great hurt and spoile to the people the Pope laboured to execute that temporall power vpon Heâ—ry the XII Oâ—to Frisingen witnesseth whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for bloud and for learning and for integritie of lifeâ— who write of the Excommunication and deposition of the said Henrie done by Gregorie the VII in this manner I read and read againe the actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and finde no where that before this man any of them was excommunicate or depriued of his Kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse any man thinke it is to be accompted for an Excommunication that Philip was for a small time placed amongst the Pâ—nitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome and that Theodosius was â—equestredor suspended from entring into the Church by blessed Ambrose for his bloudie murder In which place it is to be obserued that Otto doth plainly professe that he findes in former ages no example of priuation of a Kingdome although hee propounded these two instances touching Excommunication if not true at least hauing a shew of true ones And afterward within a few lines he writeth thus But what great mischiefes how many warres and hazardes of warres followed thereof how oft miserable Rome was besieged taken spotled because Pope was set vp againe Pope and King aboue King it is a paine to remember To be short the rage of this storme did so hurry and wrap within it so many mischiefes so many schismes so many dangers both of soules and bodies that the same euen of it selfe by reason both of the crueltie of the persecution and the continuance thereof were sufficient to prooue the vnhappinesse of mans miserie Vpon which occasion that time is by an Ecclesiasticall writer compared to the thicke darknesse of Egypt For the foresaid Bishop Gregory is banished the cuie by the King and Gibert Bishop of Rauenna is thrust into his place Further Gregorie remaining at Salernum the time of his death approching is reported to haue said I haue loued iustice and hate â— iniquitie therefore I die in banishment Therefore because the kingdome being cut off by the Church was grieuously 〈◊〉 in her Prince the Church also bereaued of so great a Pastor who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeale and authoritie conceaued no small griefe Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people They that write that the Bishop of Rome whom they meane in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperour because hee could chastise him without
hurt to the people it must needs be that either they haue not read this author or that they haue no care of their credite who ensnare themselues in so manifest an vntruth If they knew not this before let them learne now at the last out of this graue writer that that is false which they ignorantly giue out for true and I wish them to consider and iudge vnpartially if it had not been better for that Gregorie the Pope should haue suffered the wils desperate maners of Henry like to Constantius Iulianus Valens and other Emperours who vexed the Church and with teares and praiers to intret the goodnes of God either for his recouerie or destruction rather than by one insolent and strange act and that very vnnecessary to stir vp so many schismes and murders so many sackings of people and Cities so many disgraces shamefull against the Sea Apostolike so many warres against the Popes and other furious Tragedies with the destruction of all the people and to nourish and continue these being stirred vp to the exceeding mischiefe of the Church It may be that Gregorie did it of a good minde let God iudge of the intention but it cannot be that he did it rightly wisely and according to dutie nor but that he erred very wide according to the manner and counsell of a man when he assumed that to himselfe which in truth was not his that is to say the office of deposing an Emperour and the power to substitute an other in his place as though the fee of that humane kingdome had belonged to him which that verse doth sufficiently declare which is reported by Otto and aboue is transcribed by vs. Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho Now it is certaine that it is not alwaies well done and according to the will of God which is done euen of men otherwise very good thorough heat of holinesse and a good zeale Moses while he killed the Egiptian with a zeale to defend the Hebrew sinned Oza thorough a zeale to vphold the Arke of the Lord swarue and lying a tone side touched it and died Peter of a zeale to defend his Lord and Master cut of Malchus his eare and was rebuked for it Hence S. Ambrose to Theodosius I know that you are godly mercifull gentle and peaceable louing faith and the feare of the Lord but for the most part something or other deceiues vs some haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge Inconsiderate zeale often inciteth to mischiefe Therfore in my opinion there was a great fault in Pope Gregory about this businesse because he did not obserue that it belonged to the dutie of the cheefe Pastor rather to let passe one mans wickednesse vnpunished then thorough a desire to correct the same to wrap the innocent and harmelesse multitude in danger And therefore he ought not to haue excommunicate that Emperor whose wickednesse so great a number of men had conspired to maintaine that they could not be separated without a schisme a renting nay not without the dissolution of the whole Church The great light of the Church S. Austine aduised the same many ages agoe both holily and wisely and prooued the same clearely out of the writings of the Apostle Paul whose iudgement was so well liked by the Church that she recorded it amongst the Canons and therefore worthy that I should transcribe it into this place and to be written not with â—ike but with gold nor in paper that will quickly weare but in â—int and adamant or if there be any thing more durable and lasting then they The chastisement saith he of many can not be wholâ—ome but wâ—en he is chasti 〈◊〉 that hath not a multitude to partake with him But when the same aâ— case hath possessed many there is 〈…〉 but to greâ—â—e and mourne that 〈…〉 from their destruction 〈…〉 reâ—caled to holy Ezechâ—eâ—â— Least when 〈…〉 they root vp the wheat also nor 〈…〉 the Lords â—ornâ— but they themselues 〈…〉 amongst the 〈…〉 And-therefore the same 〈…〉 out many who were corrupted 〈…〉 writing to the same 〈◊〉 in his â—econd 〈◊〉 did not againe prescribe that they should not eat with such for they were many Neither could it be did of them If any brother be called a fornicator 〈…〉 any such like that they 〈…〉 much as eat with such but he saith least when I come againe to you God doe humble me and I lament many 〈…〉 haue sinned before and haue not repented for the 〈…〉 and fornication which they haue committed By this mourning of his threatning that they are rather to begun 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 from God then by that castigation that 〈◊〉 may forbeare their company And a litle after indeed if the contagâ—on of sinning haue taken hould of a multitude the 〈◊〉 mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary for 〈…〉 that â—â— of Excommunication are both 〈…〉 they prooue 〈…〉 more trouble the weake ones that be good thâ—◠〈◊〉 the stâ—ut ones that be wicked Seeing these things stand thus there is none as I suppose by comparing S. Austines rule which also is the rule of the Church with the practise of Gregorie against Henrie but will euidently see that the Pope erred greatly that would excommunicate an Emperour whose party a huge multitude both of the Cleargie and laity did follow with manifest danger of a grecuous schisme and much more when as by an odious sentence he went about to depriue him of the right of his Empire to which the Bishop himselfe had no title in the world that it is no maruell if as Sigâ—â—ert wâ—â—toth the said Gregorie a little before his death repented him of all those things which he had done against the Emperor I am willing to set downe the place of Sigâ—bert because it contemeth not his owne opinion which is suspected to the aduersaires because he followed Henricus his partie but the historicall narration of an other author Pope 〈◊〉 saith he who is also called Gregorie the 7. dieth in banishment at Salernum Oâ— him I find it thus 〈◊〉 We would haue you know who are carefull of the Ecclesiasticall charge that the Lord Apostolike 〈◊〉 who also is Gregorie lying now at the point of death caâ—ed to him one of twelue Cardinalls whom he cheefly loued aboue the rest and confessed to God and S. Peter and to the whole Church that he had greatly offended in the pastroall charge which was committed to him to gouerne and by the instigation of the Deuill had raised anger and hatred against mankind Then at last he sent the foresaid confessor to the Emperor and to the whole Church to wish all grace and indulgence to them because he saw his life was at an end and instantly he put on his 〈◊〉 vesture and remitted and loosed the bands of all his curses to the Emperor and to all christian people the liuing and the dead the spiritually and the laâ—â—y and willed his owne 〈◊〉 to depart
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
premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules and none 〈…〉 of has iudgement as hath beene said And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 thâ—â— kingdomes which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christiaâ— Kings and Princes should stand 〈…〉 that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all tempâ—â—alitiâ—s of Christians who shall meaâ—â— tâ—at 〈…〉 owne pleasure and iudgement that 〈…〉 for him if he be displeased then to 〈…〉 his indirect power so oâ—t 〈…〉 priuate 〈◊〉 oâ— the ambiâ—◠〈…〉 forward or euen 〈…〉 and contemned 〈…〉 Where of â—â—â—face 〈…〉 haue giuen 〈…〉 all of iâ—any they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the poâ—tifiâ—◠〈…〉 and 〈…〉 one after another as 〈…〉 I omit this reason taken 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—ought it 〈…〉 for that 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 kingdoms but an execution 〈…〉 to thâ—m by the Pope â—â—t iâ— it strange against the 〈…〉 and all the abâ—ttoâ— of the indirect power 〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction is 〈…〉 by the law of God oâ— of Man and also he 〈…〉 oâ— holdeth any thâ—ng iâ— he hold by neiâ—â—â—â— of these holdeth wrongfullâ— as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Dâ—â—atists Therefore it cannot be that the Pope should iustly exercise any temporall iurisdiction ouer secular Kings and Princes vnlesse it be certaine that the same is giuen him either by the law of God or of Man But neither in diuine nor humane lawes is any such place found which confers any such power vpon him whereas on the contrary part the domination and authority of kings is openly commended and allowed by many testimonies of sacred Scriptures as when it is said By mee Kings raigne All power is giuen to you The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them The heart of the King is in the hand of God I will giue them a King in mine anger My sonne feare the Lord and the King Feare God honour the King and euery where the like speeches Lastly seeing this temporall power and Iurisdiction of the Pope whereof we speake is not found to be comprised neither in the expresse word of God in the Scriptures nor by the tradition of the Apostles receiued as it were by hand nor practised by vse and custome in the Church for these thousand yeeres and more or exercised by any Pope nor allowed and commended nay not so much as mentioned by the ancient Fathers in the Church I pray you what necessitie of faith should force vs to admit it or with what authoritie can they perswade the same vnto vs Our opinion say they is prooued by reasons and examples how glad say I would I be that that were true But wee ought chiefely to know this that onely those reasons are fit to prooue this opinion of theirs whereof euident proofes and demonstrations are made which none of them hath hitherto brought nor as I thinke could bring For as touching reasons onely probable and likely whereof Dialectike syllogismes doe consist their force is not such as can conclude and giue away from Kings and Princes their soueraigne authoritie from them seeing that euen in daily brables about trifling matters nothing can be concluded vnlesse the Cause of the Suiter bee prooued by manifest and euident proofes and witnesses and therefore the Actor not proouing he that is conuented although himselfe performe nothing shall carie the businesse But the helpe is very weake and feeble in Examples because they onely shew what was done not what ought to be done those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimonie of the Scriptures which seeing they are thus let vs now see with what reasons the Aduersaries continue their opinion CHAP. XIII THere is not one amongst them all who are of the Popes partie as I said before who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharpely or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉 than the worthy Diuine Bellarmine whom I mention for honors sake who although he gaue as much to the Popes authoritie in temporalities as honestly hee might and more then he ought yet could hee not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist Who affirmed that hee had supreme power ouer all Kings and Princes of the whole earth and all Peoples Countries and Nations committed vnto him not by humane but by diuine ordinance And therefore he was very neere by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to haue abolished all the writings of that Doctor which do oppugne heresie with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report to me Which matter comforts me if peraduenture that which I would not any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholikes to read my bookes Let him doe what he will but he shall neuer bring to passe that I euer forsake the Catholike Apostolike and Romish faith wherein I haue liued from a Child to this great age or dye in another profession of faith then which was prescribed by Pius the 4. We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are fiue in number leauing others especially Bozius his fancies which are vnworthy that a man of learning should trouble himselfe to refute The first reason is which Bellarmine propounds in these wordes The ciuill power is subiect to the spirituall power when each of them is a part of the Christian common-wealth therefore a spirituall Prince may command ouer temporall Princes and dispose of temporall matters in order to a spirituall good for euery superiour may command his inferiour And least any peraduenture elude this reason by denying the Proposition with the next he labours to strengthen the same by three reasons or Media as they call them Now that ciuill power not onely as Christian but also as Ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiastike as it is such first it is prâ—â—ued by the ends of them both for the temporall end is subordinate to the spirituall end as it appeares because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore ought to be referred to the felicitie eternall Now it is plaine out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate as the ends are subordinate Secondly Kings and Bishops Cleargie and Laitie doe not make two common wealthes but one that is one Church for we are all one bodie Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth 12. But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one of another but it is no right assertion that spirituall things depend on temporall therefore temporall things depend of spirituall and are subiect to them Thirdly if a temporall administration hinder a spirituall good in all mens iudgement the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment yea euen with the losse of a temporall good therefore it is a signe
aspireth to eternall happinesse it hath not that of hir selfe not I say so farre as it is Politike doth shee direct hir indeuours thither as to hir last scope but in respect that shee is spirituall or else is furthered by the societie and Counsels of the Ecclesiastike power As appeareth by innumerable both peoples and Cities in whom the Ciuill power was strong and powerfull by seuerity of lawes although they had very slender or no notion at all of this euerlasting happinesse whereof we speake This also the Apostle declares when he willes vs to pray for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may liue a peaceable life in all pietie and chastitie ascribing peace and tranquillitie of life to the Politike gouernment but pietie and chastitie to Christian discipline Therefore to speake in one word we must know that the ends of humane actions are in the intention and not in the vnderstanding that is to say not that which the vnderstanding can inuent by discourse of reason is the end of the Action but that which the will doth desire to attaine by doing while the minde meditates on the Action that is the end of Action Whence Nauarrus saith very well That the end of the Laike power is the good happie and quiet temporall life of men which also is the end of the lawes which proceeded from the same And that the end of the Ecclesiastike power is an euerlasting supernaturall life and that the same is the end of the lawes which proceed from her I would prosecute this further but that I thinke that the matter is plaine enough to men of wit euen by Philosophie it selfe But the second reason is so friuolous and captious as nothing can be spoken more fondly or be gathered more vnsoundly for is there any old wife so doting as vnderstands not the weaknesse of this consequution They are members of one bodie therefore one depends of another For neither doth a foote depend of a foote nor an arme of an arme nor a shoulder of a shoulder but they are ioined to some third and middle member by themselues or by other members to which they adheare And is it not gathered by the same manner of reasoning and by the same argument plainly The armes of euery man be members of one bodie But in euery bodie the members are connexed and depending one â—â— another but it is not rightly affirmed That the right depends of the left Ergo The left arme of euery man depends of the right and is subiect to it Who would not laugh at such kind of Arguments so full of vanitie I hate those miserable demonstrations which doe rather inwrap and infold the matter they haue in hand with quâ—â—ckes illusions and captious sophistications then explane the same for as the armes are knit to the shoulders and the shoulders are knit to the necke and head nor the right arme or the right shoulder is subiect to the left or contrarily so the power spirituall and temporall or Ecclesiastike and Politike although they be members of one Politike bodie and parts of one Christian common-weale and Church yet neither is subiect to the other and neither can without great sinne presse and encroach vpon the borders and Iurisdiction of the other but both as it were the shoulders of one bodie are knit to the head which is Christ. Whereof this I meane the Politike prescribeth to the Citizens and Subiects the preceptes of liuing wherein the peace and tranquillity of humane societie is maintained and the other raiseth and instructeth mens mindes to the supernaturall contemplation of immortality and eternall happinesse which doth subsist with Ciuill tranquillity and sometimes without it whereof it followes that these powers are diuided and seuered in the same Christian Common-weale so as neither can be subiect to other so faire foorth as it is such And surely vnlesse Bellarmine confesse this he will be conuinced by his owne doctrine deliuered other where for in his third booke De Rom. Pontif. c. 19. where he consutes the trifles of the Smalchaldike Synod of the Lutherans and answers to that argument of theirs wherein they say That the Pope makes himselfe God seeing he will not be in aged by the Church nor by any man he shewes that the consequence is saulty in an argument drawen from Kings who also themselues haue no Iudge in earth as concerning temporalties The Kings of the earth saith he certainly acknowledge no iudge in earth in the point which appertaines to politike matters shall there be therefore as many Gods as there be Kings What other thing is it I pray you that Kings haue no Iudge in earth as concerning politike matters then that which we will prooue that the Politike power is distinguished from the Ecclesiastike and that the Pope can by no meanes dispose and iudge of the same For if he could surely either Kings should haue a Iudge in earth euen As touching politike matters or the Pope must alwaies dwell in heauen Therefore it cannot be but that Bellarmine either disagreeth from himselfe or that he hath slipt for want of memory or that which I beleeue not that he desires to vary and change the truth when as in one place he affirmeth for certaine and granted that Kings haue no Iudge in earth as concerning Politike matters and in another place hee sets the Pope as Iudge ouer all Kings and Princes who may iudge and depose them and at his pleasure dispose of all their kingdomes and estates For whereas he makes the distinction in these words directly and indirectly that belongeth onely to the forme and maner of proceeding but not to the force and working of the iudgement For it is euer true that he hath a Iudge in earth as concerning temporalties whom the Pope iudgeth in temporalties what way soeuer either directly or indirectly And I pray you what oddes is there in regard of the miserie and calamity of a King that is iudged by the Pope and depriued of his kingdome whether the Pope hath done it directly as if hee should giue sentence vpon the King of Sicily or Naples as the direct Lord of the fee vpon his vassell or hâ—th doâ—â—â—t indirectly as vpon other Kings who are 〈◊〉 subiect to him by any Châ—ntelar law it so be a like 〈…〉 both the iudgements And this is suffi 〈…〉 argument No let vs examine what 〈…〉 〈…〉 is plain euen 〈…〉 â—â—thered thereof by the Au 〈…〉 â—temporall power is subiect to 〈…〉 to prooue a matter by demon 〈…〉 bringâ—th sooâ—th a sigâ—e and that surely 〈…〉 which many times deâ—â—â—ues vs by a 〈…〉 â—herefore I answer to the argument by de 〈…〉 For although it be true that a tem 〈…〉 â—â—und to change the manner of his go 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—tuall good be â—â—â—dred thereby â—et is it 〈…〉 by a necessary consequence that the 〈…〉 to the Spâ—â—â—tuall but this onelâ— that a â—â—â—â—â—tuall good is morâ— excellent then a temporall good the which is true
〈◊〉 for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus forced the Queene to depart out of Illiricum and to pay a great yeerely tribute Will any man heere say that the â—eâ—iaâ—ites Troianes Illyrians were vanquished and repressed by the Leuite Menclaus or Coruncanus now dead and not rather by them who for their sakes tooke armes and punished the enemies In like manner will any say it is the ecclesiastike Common-wealth which bridles and reduceth into order the temporall playing vpon them with much iniurious and insolent demeanour and not rather an other temporall state which enters in armes for the sake of the Ecclesiastike republique and without whose helpe the Church her selfe and all her Orders would lie troden and trampled vnder foote What if there bee no temporall state which will or dare contest with this state which is enemie to the Ecclesiastike common-wealth by what meanes then will she reuenge herselfe To vse few wordes although we grant them their comparison and conclusion there can nothing bee made of it but that the Pope hath such a power to dispose of temporall matters of Christians and to depose Princes as either the King of France is knowen to haue ouer the English Spaniards or other neighbour people who doe him wrong or any of these vpon the State and Kings of France if they haue offended them which power in what manner and of what proportion it is can onely be determined and decided by the sword CHAP. XIX THese although they may suffice for the refuting of the second reason yet least in these writings of this most learned man I should passe ouer any thing which because it is either vntouched or negligently handled might beget any error or cast any scruple into the Reader it is a matter worth the paines to examine and sift what that might be which for the strengthning of his reason he brings out of S. Bernard in the bookes de Consid. ad Eugen Bernard indeed aduiseth that the materiall sword is to be exercised by the souldiers hand at the becke of the Priest and commandement of the Emperour which we surely confesse for warres both are vndertaken more iustly and discharged more happily when the Ecclesiasticall holines doth agree conspire with kingly authoritie But we must note he attributeth only to the Priest a Becke that is the consent and desire to wage warre but to the Emperour the commandement and authoritie Whereby it is euident that hee speaketh in no other respect that the Materiall sword belongeth to the Church then for that in a Christian estate although the authoritie and command for warre be in the power of Emperours Kings and Princes yet warres are with more iustice waged where the consent of the Ecclesiastike power comes in which being guided by the spirit of God can more sharpely and truly iudge between right and wrong godly or vngodly But what if the Emperour will not draw his sword at the becke of the Priest nay what if he shall draw it against the Priests beck and assent doth S. Bernard in this case giue to the Priest any temporall power ouer the Emperour for this is it which we seeke in this place and whereon our whole disputation turneth surely none at all But he rather teacheth that none belongeth to him whenas he saith that the Materiall sword by which sword the soueraigne power temporall is signified may not bee exercised by the Church but onely by the hand of the souldier and commandement of the Emperour Which same point Gratianus deliuers more plainly being almost S. Bernards equall When Peter saith he who was first of all the Apostles chosen by the Lord did vse the materiall word that he might defend his Master from the iniurie of the Iewes he heard Turne thy sword into the seabbard for euery one who takes the sword shall perish by the sword as if it had beene told him openly Hitherto it was lawfull for the and thy Predecessors to prosequâ—te the enemies of God with the temporall sword heereafter for an example of Patience turne thy sword that is hitherto granted to thee into the scabbard and yet exercise the spirituall sword which is the word of God in the kiling of thy former life for euery one besides him or his authoritie who vseth lawfull power who as the Apostle saith beareth not the sword without cause to whom also euery soule ought to be subiect I say euery one who without such a warrant receiueth the sword shall perish by the sword If these of Bernard and Gratian bee true it can by no meanes be that the Pope should with any right exercise temporall power vpon the Emperour or other secular Princes for it cannot be exercised but by the sword and the sword cannot be by the souldier drawen but by their commandement and so this temporall power would prooue vtterly vaine and vnprofitable in the person of the Pope when as the execution thereof should bee denied him Vnlesse some Emperour perchance should be besotted with so fatall a fatuitie that he would command the souldiers to beare armes against himselfe or should be indued with so great sanctitie and iustice that he doe by his edict signifie that they should not spare himselfe if hee should offend Hitherto belongs that which S. Ambrose writeth The law saith he forbiddeth not to strike and therefore peraduenture Christ said to Peter offering two swordes It is enough as though it were lawfull vntill the Gospell that there might be in the Law an instruction of equitie in the Gospell perfection of goodnesse Besides we must vnderstand that that place of the Gospell touching two swords which they obiect vnto vs is not necessarily to be vnderstood of the Temporall and Spirituall swords yea that it is far more agreeable to the speech of our Sauior in that place that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall sword and the sword of the Passion as Amb. expoundeth it learnedly and holily in that place For Christ in that last speech with the Disciples before his Passion admonished them that they should be sent to preach the Gospell of a few other manner of conditions after his death came they should receiue this commandement Euntes in Mundum vniuersum predicate Euangelium vniuersae Creaturae then before they had beene sent by him when as yet he liued with them in the earth as if he had said hitherto I haue so sent you as you haue needed neither bagge nor girdle nor shooes but heereafter I will send you to preach the Gospell and you will haue neede of a bagge and a scrip to wit of Care and Patience and also of the two swords the Spirituall and that of the Passion whereof it is said A sword shall pierce thy soule for there is a Spirituall sword saith Ambrose in that place that thou shouldest sell thy patrimony purchase the word whereby the naked inward reines of the soule are cloathed and furnished There is also a sword of
Emperour although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith yet was ordained of God and was inferour to God alone Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection not because they could not but because they lawfully might not Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only and the lesse could not depose the greater how could the Christian subiects depose him What doth either the Apostle fight with himselfe or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another Or euen those ancient fathers who succeeded the Apostles were they ignorant of their whole â—â—gâ—t and â—â—â—ledge against Iâ—nded or Heretâ—kâ— Kings and Mâ—gâ—â—traâ—â—â— For that they had force and strength equall 〈◊〉 and more then fuilâ—â—t to eâ—ecute an exploâ—t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very largely Thereâ—ore it is â—â—â—dent by these that the authoritie of the Apostle Paâ—â— doth nothing appâ—â—taâ—â— to the former proposition of Bellarâ—â—â—e touching the deposing of Kings and therefore that hee committed a great error that in a matter so serious and of so great moment hee hath deâ—â—ded the Reader with a false shadoâ— of the Apostle authoritie If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apoâ—â—lâ—â— direction had taken aâ—aâ— the authoritie poâ—er and â—â—nstâ—â—tion of the msidell Iudges or in aâ—â— paâ—â—hadal â—â—gaâ—â—d the same or had exempted Christians from their subieâ—â—â—n there could nothing haue been stronger thâ—â— â—â—â—â—unes argument nothing more trâ—â—â— thâ—n â—â—s opâ—â—â— But because that constitution of Iudgeâ— dâ—â— no more prâ—iâ—dice â—eathâ—â— Iâ—â—â—â—diction theâ— the châ—sing of Peâ—â—e Kings at â—â—â—uetide or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the â—antoâ— youth in the 〈…〉 is prâ—iudâ—câ—all to the true Kings and Magistrateâ— it iâ— certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be draâ—â—â— from thence But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question I must adâ—â—â—â—tise you that S. Thomas is in some places of that opinion that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethnâ—ke Princes may iustly be taken away by the â—â—â—tence or ordination of the Church hauing the authoritie of God as he saith S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me but not so great as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canonâ—call Scripture or that it should ouercome either reason or law Whose ghost I honour and admire his doctrine But yet there is no reason why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie for his opinion and also because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie And the reason which he brings because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull who are translated into the sonnes of God An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man as though if any man deserue to be depriued of oâ—ce benefice dignitie authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth may therefore presently be spoiled by another rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same or by another that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him Who knoweth not that the Chancellor Constable and other officers made by the King doe deserue to loose their place if in any thing they abuse their office but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them so long aâ— the Prince on whom onely they doe depend â—uâ—ereth them to execute their once In like manner infidell Princes although by the desert of 〈◊〉 â—â—fidelitie they deserue to 〈◊〉 their authoritie yet because they are constituted by God and are inferiour to him alone they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie and deposed but by God himselfe And indeed the same Thomas in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul aboue recited in this Chapter sheweth plainly enough that the Church hath not that authoritie whereby shee may depose â—thinkes for he saith it is against the law of God to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes Now it is sure that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God further to take from infidell Princes the right of Lordship and Dignitie is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement Therefore the Church hath not that power And let any man who will peruse all Stories he shall finde no where that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie to iudge Princes infidell or heathen Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall as Thomas thinketh in that place but for want of rightfull power because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull according to that of the Apostle What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without and also because Princes appointed by God haue God onely Iudge ouer them by whom only they may be deposed Neither is it to the matter that Paul when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels addeth that only Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed for he said not that as though for that cause onely seruants should obey their Masters but that especially for that cause they should doe it and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe which could arise thereof that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters to wit the publike scandall of the whole Church of God and of Christian doctrine Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will if they might doe it without scandall to the Church for they should not commit flat theft in their owne persons by the law of Nations But he would shew that they did not onely sinne which in other places he plainly teacheth but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault and aboue all things to be auoided Therefore now it remaineth that according to my promise I make proofe that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes is false euen out of the Prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 and granted by himselfe The matter is plaine and easie to be done for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes in all Ciuill causes as other men his words are these I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because indeed hee was his Iudge although not of right for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere lib. 2. cap. 96.
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
beginning that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subiection is giuen As also because by the vow of religiont he obligation is taken only to God and the Church whereof the Pope is the Vicar or deputed head and therefore if the Pope to whom the free procuration and dispensation of all the buisnesses of the Church is permitted shall as it were in a fashion of renewing a bond transfuse and change the obligation taken to the Church into another Obligation and also doe interpret and consture that by the promise of a great good or performance there is satisfaction made to the Lord God who is the principall creditor in that businesse peraduenture it will not be very absurd to say that there may by chance prooue a liberation and freedome from the knot of the former vow and promise vnlesse some may thinke that it cannot be for this cause because the transgression of a lawfull vow is simply and of his owne nature sinfull and that which is sinfull may not be allowed to be donne to obtaine any good although it be very great But the solution of that obiection is very easie But the matter 〈◊〉 farre otherwise in the case of an Oath which men in their bargaines and couenants are wont to take to confirme and ratifie another Obligation thereby Seeing such a manner of oath is a certaine increase of that obligation to which it is added for securitie in such manner as suertiesâ—ip or assurance of any Pledge or Moregage is vsually taken And therefore although the oath be said to be made to God yet in this case the obligation doth accrew not to God principally but to the person to whom the oath is sworne quia per iuramentum â—urans non intendebat placere Deo sed satisfacere proximo Whereby it commeth to passe that he to whom the Oath is taken hath much more interest by that Oath and obtaineth much more power either to retaine it or to remit it then is granted to the Church in a vow for the Church or Pope euen as they confesse who submit all things to his pleasure cannot without great and iust cause dispense with the solemne vow of Religion But he to whom an other hath by oath bound his faith in the matter of giuing or doing may both alone and without cause of his meere pleasure wholy free the Promiser from the Religion of his Oath and 〈◊〉 it to him whatsoeuer it bee of himselfe so as his onely leaue and good will obtained neither is there any more need of the Popes absolution neither if he shall not performe that which he promised may he be reputed guiltie of periurie before God Therefore it is in a man in this Case who can at his pleasure either retaine one that is bound or dismisse him free which because they are so by the consent of all men how can it be that the Pope may take from the Creditor against his will an Obligation taken to him by the best law that may be I meane by the Law naturall diuine and humane by an oath euery manner of way lawfull which was added to the lawfull contract seing in this kind as in the former there is no place left to Construction by which it may be presumed that he is satisfied to whom principally the oath was made viz. No Creditor speaking a word against nor shewing the contrarie seeing presumption yeeldeth to the truth But let it be that he may vpon cause take it away and free the Promiser from the bond of his Oath because I wil not striue longer with the Canonists about this matter let him then take it away and what then force after thinke you will seeme in this our businesse you will say that the people will be free from the commandement and subiection of the Prince a soone as they are loosed from the bond of their oath Thinke you so indeed what doe you not see that this Oath is but an Accessarie onely to ratifie and assure the Obligation whereby loyaltie and obedience was promised to the Prince doe you not know that Accessaries are taken away and discharged with auoiding of the principall Obligation for although the principall being cancelled the Accessarie falles yet by the taking away of the Accessaries the Principall is not destroied Therefore the Obligation remaineth yet to which this Oath was added which because it consists vpon naturall and diuine Law doth no lesse straitly hold the mindes and consciences of men before God then if it were supported with an Oath quia Dominus inter iur amentum loquelam nostram nullam vult esse distantiam as much as concernes keeping faith of the promise Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more by reason of the contempt of God and notwithstanding that in the externall Court Periurie is more grieuously punished by reason of the solemnitie of the promise then the faith neglected of a mans single promise and bare word as we say But if the Pope would also cancell this Obligation de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine and deliuer and discharge the Subiects from the Oath of the King and enioyne them that they should not dare to obey his requests commandements and lawes vnder paine of Excommunication Shall not the expresse commandement of God seeme to contraueene this warrant of the Pope I meane the commandement of the honoring of Kings with all obedience Is it not lawfull in such a businesse and in a cause the greatest almost that may be to doe that which the Popes interpreters are accustomed to doe in Controuersies of lesse moment And that is to make diligent and carefull inquisition into this same plenitudinem Potestatis whether it extend it selfe so farre as that by it should expresly be forbidden which God doth expresly command or that which God directly forbids to be done the same may lawfully be commanded by it God commandes mee by Salomon to feare the King by his Apostles to honour the King to be subiect and obedient to him This surely is a commandement both of naturall and diuine Law that the inferiour should obey the superiour as long as hee forbiddeth not who is superiour to them both in the same kind of power And he in this businesse betweene the people and the Prince when the question is about temporall authoritie and subiection is God alone then whom alone the King is lesse in temporall matters as in spirituall the Pope Seeing then all men doe ingenuously confesse that this fulnesse of the Apostolike power is not so great that the Pope may in any sort dispense in those things which are bidden or forbidden by the expresse word of God which Axiome or Proposition Bellarmine chiefely resteth on while he would shew That the Pope cannot subiect himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels The Popes power ouer all men is saith he by the law of God but the Pope cannot dispence in the law of God We
because they are separated not by humane but by diuine power who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church by translation deposition or cession For quoth he not man but God doth separate whom the Bishop of Rome who beareth the person not of a pure man but of the true God in earth weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church dissolueth not by humane but rather by diuine authoritie Thus he These manner of speeches and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour that they suppose whatsoeuer is done by the Pope is done by God himselfe because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning I confesse that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words nor more hard for the sense that in expounding the same the wits of all Interpreters doe faile For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly plainly and cleerely then this That not man but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue Or what followeth more rightly of any thing then this of that position Ergo that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie which is consummate carnall copula betweene maried persons And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion and therefore wee must confesse that that whereof it followeth is false also because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true Which when Hostiensis had obserued when I say hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason But that reason quoth he sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it is not sufficient vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood for by that it would follow that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie But for all that Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth For that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie because as he saith before carnall copulation by a common dissent it may be dissolued the Popes authoritie comming betweene arg cap. 2 cap. expublico de conuers coniugat Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason for as touching the rescripts alleged by him and if there be any such like they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus in which case there is no neede of the Pope authoritie to interuene or any pontificiall dispensation but that they are warranted by meere right and the common helpe of the law who in that manner doe procure a separation and breake off matrimonie But that a matrimonie ratified and not yet consummate may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope by the common dissent of the parties that wee are to denie constantly and that according to the most learned Diuines For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or essence of matrimonie for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction and consent of mindes whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other But the procreation of children and the bed-fellowship for that cause is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie but to the end Hence is it said by the heathen that Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit Not the fellowship of the bedde but the consent of the mindes makes mariages And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions Otherwise surely that first mariage which God instituted in Paradise was not a mariage vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence began to prouide for issue then which what can be more absurd Moreouer there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church no authoritie of Fathers no decretall Epistle of the Pope in a word there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour matrimonie ratified although not consummate Quos Deus conâ—unxit homo ne separet Nay and hee cannot except vnlesse it be true that they who being contracted are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie are not ioined by God But there is in this matter as in others so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law that they are not ashamed to auerre that not onely matrimonie ratified but not consummate and that against the common iudgement of the Diuines but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction may be dissolued by the Pope aswell as by God himselfe which if it should bee true how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them who haue grace and power with the Pope or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes being blinded with desire of money J leaue to others to iudge But there is no cause why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons with words of the present time Contracted may in no case bee dissolued except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion For it is not credible that so learned and godly a Bishop had either so sodainely forgot himselfe or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius CHAP. XXIX NOw if any aske my opinion and interpretation of them I am not afraid to say as in a matter of this obscurity that I am at a stand notwithstanding that I doe thinke that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that the mind of this good Bishop and the sense of the wordes doe differ which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning or do omit some necessary particle or exception for to make the constitution plaine and entire for otherwise it is not likely that hee who denieth that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke that he may haue propertie of goods or marry a wife would affirme that the Pope may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate What is the matter then I will speake what I thinke I haue obserued that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine that although hee compare each mariage in this that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely yet where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop and Vicar of Iesu Christ he conioineth
them together no more nor makes mention of carnall matrimony but onely of spirituall which not deemed to be separated by man but by God himselfe then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered not out of humane but rather out of diuine authority by translation deposition or cession by which silence and omission of carnall Matrimony he doth sufficiently implie that in the manner of separation it doth differ and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this viz. the carnall as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner God hath reserued to his own iudgement the dissolution as well of the carnall as of the spirituall matrimony notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome who is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter the necessity or commoditie of the Churches c. may dissolue them which when he doth not man but God doth separate whose Person the Pope beareth in earth Now why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage and not a carnall also the reason is plaine and easie because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe and euerie way doth belong to the ordination gouernement and oeconomie of the Church which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage seeing they are not able without it to execute and discharge the office committed to them And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes themselues as Hierarches that is spirituall Gouernors doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters persons of the Church wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same who hath by name committed this dispensation and procuration to them But carnall matrimony was instituted not for the ordination of the Church but onely for procreation of issue and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature and to be common to all nations and countries neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church but that it is a Sacrament in the new law containing the my sterie of God and the soule of Christ and the Church And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors the power to dissolue the same They haue inough to discerne iudge if it be a mariage that they may know if it bee a sacrament Therefore although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage viz by remouing all impediments which doe arise out of the positiue law and ecclesiasticall constitutions and giue order that it may duly and rightly be contracted which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme yet when as either through the common law permitting or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited it was contracted hath no power for any cause in the world to relaxe and dissolue the same Neither doth it belong to the matter that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall we see often that separation is made of those persons as haue liued a long time together vnder the conceit and shew of mariage For neither the Pope in that case nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority doth dissolue any matrimony but by his iudgement declareth that the matrimony which indeede was contracted de fasto or was falsly supposed to be a mariage was no mariage at all enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together to depart one from an other and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance But this is not to dissolue Matrimony or to separate persons lawfully ioined as concerning the bond of mariage Whereby it is euident that both Innocentius the Interpreter who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name and also Ioh Andr. who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined let no man separate Of their owne authority say they but man doth not separate carnall matrimony when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope but God himselfe by whose authority those constitutions were made As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons and make a nullitie in the law because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted to breake or loose the band no constitution either of Pope or church can do Otherwise the Apostle in those words The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth but if her husband doe sleepe she is free I say he did ill to make mention of death onely if shee may be free by some other meanes viz. the Popes constitutions the mariage it selfe being dissolued And now since these things are thus it is time to returne from this by-way into which the vnreasonable flattery and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs into that path from whence wee haue digressed CHAP. XXX IT is now positiuely set downe and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters that the Pope cannot make grace to any of the naturall and diuine law or as we vsually speake now a dayes cannot dispense against the law of nature and of God and grant that that may bee done without guilt which God and nature haue forbidden or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done and this not onely the Diuines but also the Canonists of the better sort doe very earnestly maintaine Therefore this is a most grounded Axâ—ome whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter Surely we do admit his proposition which is That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues that hee may driue them away by all the meanes he is able Wee admit also the Assumption That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God are heretickes Where hee concludeth in this manner Ergo If a Prince of a sheepe or ramme turne Wolfe that is to say of a Christian turne an hereticke the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication and also may charge the people that they doe not follow him and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects Surely a very vnsound collection In stead whereof in good Logicke should bee put this conclusion Ergo If any Prince of a sheepe or a ramme turne Wolfe the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can For this ariseth rightly out of the former
men and is iudged of no man And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malitious Pope whensoeuer he conceiueth and burneth with any priuate hatred against any King though he be neuer so good to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogatiue that hee may turne him out of his Kingdome and reduce him to the estate of a priuate man Which J would not speake in this place for I would not presage so hardly of the Gouernours of the holy See but that all the world doth vnderstand that the same hath in former ages beene practised by diuers Popes And it is not yet aboue the age of a good olde man since Iulius the II. did most wickedly and vniustly take from Iohn King of Nauarre his Kingdome by Ferdinando of Aragon by this very pretence of the Papall authoritie the same Iohn being not guiltie or conuinced of any crime but onely because he fauoured Lewes the French King And if to doe matters of this nature is not to be superiour in temporall affaires I would gladly learne of these great Masters what it is to be a superiour One thing I know if this opinion of theirs bee true that the Pope is able to doe more against Kings indirectly then if he should haue directly any command ouer them Of which point we haue spoken something before If therefore the Pope de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine shall goe about by his Decree or Bull to forbidde them to obey their King may not all the people againe or some in the peoples behalfe answer the Pope in this manner Holy Father You are not aboue our King in temporalties and in that respect you cannot hinder the temporall obedience which wee performe vnto him Why doe you forbidde vs to doe that which God commands vs to doe Is it because it is at your pleasure to interprete the will of God comprehended in the diuine Law and in the Scriptures But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation bee made as doth wholly make the law void and vtterly doth destroy and dissolue the commandement If there be any thing doubtfull or darke in the Law of God wee presently flie to the See of Peter that is to the See which you now doe hold to receiue the interpretation of the truth but that which is cleere and manifest of it selfe that needeth no light of any interpretation Seeing then our Lord and Sauiour commands vs to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those things which are Gods and after by his Apostle to be subiect to Princes and Powers and to bee obedient to them It is your part to declare vnto vs what things be Caesars that is to say what things belong to our King and what be Gods that both of them may haue that which belongeth to them and in this distinction of things we will willingly heare your voice But when you say I will haue you giue nothing to Caesar or to your Prince you contradict Christ and therefore wee heare not your voice Wee doe indeede confesse and professe also that the exposition and interpretation of your Holinesse should take place touching the obseruation of the diuine Law but we affirme absolutely that that is not to be receiued which maketh a scorne both of the Law of God and of Nature and bringeth the same into contempt As for example not to digresse from the matter we haue in hand We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates in the obseruation of this commandement we as obedient children doe willingly embrace your expositions and restraints which doe not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandement it selfe as when you say that from hence there growes no obligation to obey Kings but in those matters which belong to their temporall iurisdiction that all spirituall things are to bee reserued to the Vicar of Christ and to the Church Also when as you doe aduertise vs that wee ought not to yeeld obedience to the King in that which he commands against the Law of God or Nature or which otherwise is repugnant to good manners But when as you simply and absolutely command vs that we doe not in any sort obey our lawfull Prince or any of his charges commandements and lawes wee may not obey this commandement of yours because this is not to interprete the Commandement of God which is granted to your Holinesse but vtterly to abrogate and ouerthrow the same which you cannot doe by any meanes Christ when he deliuered to Peter the keies of the kingdome of heauen did not giue him power faciends de peccato non peccatum that is to say that which is sinne to make it to be none Therefore in this point we will follow the common doctrine of the Canonists That we ought not to obey the Popes commandement if either it bee vniust or that many mischiefes or scandals are likely to ensue thereof or else the disturbance and disquietnesse of the state of the Church and the Christian Common-wealth be likely to grow of the same and therefore if the Pope should command any thing to religious men which were against the substance of order that is which should bee contrarie to the rule professed by them they are not bound to obey it as Felinus interpreteth in cap. accepimus de fid instrum cap. si quando de rescript as the same Innocent teacheth elsewhere whom Martin of Carats in his tractate De Principibus quast 408. and Felinus in de cap. si quando and d. cap. accepimus doth report and follow How much lesse then ought the subiects of Kings to giue eare to the Pope going about to withdraw them from the obedience which is due to their King by the law of God and Nature and confirmed with the most straight obligation of an oath If you will vs to withdraw our neckes from the yoke and seruice of our King for this cause because a spirituall good is hindred by our obedience which is giuen to him by vs wee answer that this mischiefe whatsoeuer it bee chanceth to fall out by some accident for simply and of it selfe euill cannot grow out of good nor good out of euill Now wee haue against our willes committed that accident but we cannot hinder it Wee discharge the dutie due to our King and according to patience in doing well wee seeke glorie honour and immortalitie He if he abuse the obedience due vnto him and so great a benefit of God hee shall feele God to be a most sharpe Judge and Reuenger ouer him But it is not lawfull for vs to forsake our dutie and to transgresse the commandement of God that euen a very great good should follow thereby lest wee purchase to our selues the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce He that commands to obey our Kings and to yeeld to Casar those things which be Casars putteth no distinction betweene good and euill Princes and therefore ought not we to make any
distinction If as B. Augustine teacheth hee who hath vowed continence to God ought by no meanes to offend euen with this recompence that he beleeueth he may lawfully marie a wife because she who desires to marie with him hath promised that shee will bee a Christian and so may purchase to Christ the soule of a woman which lieth in the death of infidelitie who if shee marie him is ready to prooue a Christian What excuse shall wee vse to God if wee for the hope of some contingent good should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths which wee haue giuen to God and our King For there is nothing more precious then a soule for which our Lord and Sauiour hath vouchsafed to die And therefore if we may not sinne to gaine that to Christ for what cause shal it be lawfull for vs to sinne Moreouer in that you say that you doe free vs and pronounce vs free from the bond of this dutie that taketh not from vs all scruple of conscience but causeth vs to hang in suspence and the more to doubt of your authoritie because wee know that the commaundement wherein you promise to dispence with vs is ratified by the law of God and Nature and that your Holinesse can neuer no not by vertue of the fulnesse of your power dispense with any in the law of God and Nature Therefore wee will obey you in spirituall matters and the King in temporall matters God commands both wee will performe both To be short the comminations and threatnings which you insert in your Mandate we doe wonder at surely and in some part we feare them but yet we are not altogether so fearefull as to bee more afraid of them then we ought or that we should be so terrified with them as for feare of an vniust Excommunication to denie to our King the iust and lawfull obedience which is due vnto him For although it bee a common speech that euery Excommunication is to bee feared yet we ought to know that an vniust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced but rather him by whom it is denounced Therefore if you strike vs with the edge of your Excommunication because we will not at your commandement transgresse the Commandement of God and malum facere your malediction and curse shal be turned into a blessing so as although we may seeme to be bound outwardly yet inwardly wee remaine as it were loosed and innocent These and such like are the reasons which haue so settled the faith as well of the Clergie as Nobilitie and euen of the whole Commons of France toward their Kings that they haue resolutely withstood certaine Popes who haue earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyaltie and obedience of their Kings and haue scorned the Popes Bulles and the sentence of deposition and depriuation from the kingdome nay more that they haue not beleeued therefore not without reason that they are bound by any Ecclesiastique Censures or may iustly bee enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication For my part surely I doe not see what may iustly bee blamed in the former answer and defense of the people vnlesse it be imputed to them and be sufficient to conuince them of contumacie because they doe not by and by put in execution without all delay or examination of the equitie euery commandement of the Pope as though it were deliuered euen by the voice of God himselfe which I thinke none in his right wits will iudge As for the other points they are grounded on most firme demonstrations most sound reasons and arguments and reasons of diuine and humane law viz. That it is the commandement of God that honour and obedience should be yeelded to Kings and Princes no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded That all the authoritie of the Pope consisteth in spirituall matters That temporall affaires are left to secular Kings and Princes That the Pope is not superiour to Kings in temporall matters and therefore that he cannot punish them with temporal punishments Lastly that the Pope can in no sort dispense against the Law of Nature and of God whereby this obedience is commanded the subiects toward the Prince and for that cause can neither absolue and discharge the subiects from that obligation nor by iust excommunication censure them who doe not obey him when he forbiddeth them to giue lawfull obedience to the Prince Al which points are seuerally and distinctly concluded before with authorities testimonies and arguments which in my opinion cannot be answered which notwithstanding I will leaue to the iudgement of the Church For this is my minde and resolution to submit my selfe and all mine to the censure and iudgement of my most holy Mother CHAP. XXXI THose things which hitherto haue beene deliuered by vs of the soueraigne authoritie of Kings and Princes and of the dutie which is not to bee denied to them in all things which are not repugnant to Gods Commandements and to good manners they are confirmed by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers and the whole Church For although they had great opportunitâ—e and meanes to pull downe and to defect from their gouernment wicked Christian Princes by whom they had beene wronged with priuate and publike iniuries yet in no maner did they moue any question against them touching their authoritie and rule they denied them no parcell of humane obsequie and obedience Only they wisely freely and stoutly resisted their errours And so holding the multitude in their dutie towards God and their King they obserued both precepts of fearing God and honouring the King And in very deede this is the principall remedie to preserue mens mindes from slipping and reuoke them from errour and the most ready way and meane to reduce Kings and Princes being furiously caried headlong with a frenticke heresie from immanitie and fiercenesse to courtesie and mildnesse from errour to truth from heresie to the faith which course the ancient Fathers euer held in such like cases which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages and had not arrogated to themselues that same insolent and proud and hatefull domination ouer Kings and Emperours in temporall matters it had gone better then at this time it doth with the Christian Common-wealth and peraduenture those heresies wherewith wee are now sore pressed might haue beene strangled in the very cradle For euen the issue and the euent of businesse to this day doth sufficiently teach that the Popes doe little or nothing auaile while they hold this high slipperie and steepe headlong way but that they doe more times raise troubles schismes and warres by this meane in Christian Countries then propagate the faith of Christ or increase the profit and enlarge the liberty of the Church How vnprofitable and hurtfull to the Christian Common-wealth that assault was of Gregorie the VII vpon Henrie the IV. which Gregorie was the
first of all the Popes that euer aduentured this high course wee haue sufficiently declared before But who is ignorant how that same furious aggression and censure of Boniface the VIII vpon Philip the Faire how little it profited nay how much it hurt the Church Likewise that of Iulius the II. against Lewes the XII both Kings of France of Clement the VII and Paulus the III. against Henrie the VIII and of Pius Quintus against Elizabeth Kings of England Did not all these Princes not onely not acknowledge but also contemne and laugh to scorne that same papall imperiousnesse carried beyond the bounds of a spirituall iurisdiction as meere arrogation and an vsurped domination For the two last Popes I dare bee bold to affirme vpon a cleere ground for the matter is knowne to all the world that they were the cause that Religion was lost in England for that they tooke vpon them to vsurpe and practise so odious and so large a iurisdiction ouer the Prince and people of that kingdome Therefore how much more iustly and wisely did Clement the VIII who chose rather by a spirituall and fatherly charitie and a vertue agreeable to his name to erect and establish the state of the French Kingdome which began to stagger and sway in religion then to contend by this same haughty and threatning authority of a temporall iurisdiction because hee knew that seldome or neuer it had happie issue Out of doubt for Kings and Princes who glory not without cause that they are beholding onely to God the Sword for their Kingdomes and principalities it is proper to them of a naturall greatnes of mind to desire rather to die with honour then to submit their scepters to an others authority and to acknowledge any iudge superiour in temporall matters And for that cause it seemeth not to be good for the Church and Christian common-wealth that the Pope should be inuested in so great an authority ouer secular Princes by reason of the manifold slaughters miseries and lamentable changes of Religion and of all things besides which dospring from thence In which consideration I cannot but wonder at the weake iudgement of some men who take themselues to be very wise who to remoue from the Pope the enuie of so hatefull a power and to mitigate allay the indignation of Kinges whome it offen deth so much are not afraide to giue out and to publish in bookes scattered abroad that this temporall prerogatiue of the Pope ouer Kings is passing profitable euen for the Kings thēselus because as they say mē somtimes are kept in compasse more through the feare of loosing temporall then of spirituall estates An excellent reason surely and worthy of them who put no difference betweene Princes and priuate persons and measure all with one foot Surely these men reach so farre in vnderstanding that they vnderstand nothing at all As though that feare wich falles vpon priuate persons is wont to possesse also the minds of Princes who hold themselues sufficiently protected and armed with the onely authority of their gouernment against all power and strength and impression of any man That reason ought onely to be referred to them whom the terrour of temporall authority and the seuerity of ordinary iurisdiction do reclaime from offending with feare of punishment for these kind of people because they are sure that if they offend they shall be chastised with some pecuniarie or corporall mult doe for the most part abstaine from doing hurt not for conscience but for the displeasure and feare of the losse of temporall thinges But Kings haue not the same reason but being placed on high aboue all humane constitutions and all positiue lawes doe giue vnto God onely the account of their administration whose punishment the longer it is in cōming the more seuere it is like to bee Against priuate persons the execution of punishment is ready which they cannot auoid without the mercy of the Prince But what execution can bee done against Princes seeing they are not tied by any sanctions of humane lawes nullisque ad poenam vocentur legibus tuti imperij poteslate For that it is expressed in the law That the Prince is free from the laws that both the Latine and the Greeke Interpreters do vnderstand as of all lawes so especially of poenall that the Prince although he doe offend may not be chastised by them or as the Graecians doe speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is the cause that Kings being assured both the greatnesse of their authority and confidence of their Armes feare not the losse of any temporall estate seeing there is not one among a thousād of them so froward and friendlesse but that he can find many friends to follow his party by whose helpe and aduice whether he be to vse sleight or strength hee supposeth he can maintaine his Crowne and scepter And for this very reason it is so farre that they will be terrified with these imperious and lording minitations to take their Kingdomes away that they are rather inflamed and set on fire by them against all pietie and religion And it is verie certaine that this temporall power which the Pope some ages past doth challenge ouer all men is so hatefull to princes that euen they who doe much honour the seate of Peter and do acknowledge the great power of his successors in spirituall causes yet they cannot without indignation endure to heare the speech of this temporall domination The reason is because neither in the sacred scriptures nor traditions of Apostles or any writings of ancient fathers there appeareth any testimony nay no token or print of footing of any such authority of the Pope and that a matter of so great weight I meane so great a commaund and power of raigning should bee euicted or wrested from them without the manifest word of God or pregnant proofe of reason neither can they endure any reason of law or indifferencie of equity can admit Wherfore wise men haue euer been of this mind that the Popes should with much more case procure the peace of the Church if according to the custome of their ancesters they would quietly rest themselues within the bounds and compasse of the spirituall iurisdiction and that according to their Apostolicke charity they should humblie entreat wicked Kings requesting beseeching protesting with praiers and teares that they would returne into the way rather then that they should goe about through this hatefull intermination to strip them of their temporall authority as it were through force and feare wherby they profit nothing or little to extort and wrest from them amendement of maners and faith And if these Princes bee so obstinate and stiffe in their wicked courses that they can be moued with no teares nor bended with no praiers the assistance of God must be implored and they abandoned to his iudgement But now let vs goe forward CHAP. XXXII THe second argument which Bellarmine deducteth out of his fift
reason before related by vs is by him propounded in these words A shepheard may shedde and shut vp the furious rammes which destroy the flocke But a Prince is a furious ramme destroying the flocke when he is in faith a Catholicke but so wicked as hee doth much hurt Religion and the Church as if he should sell Bishoprickes spoile Churches c. Ergo the Pastor of the Church may reclude him he should haue rather said exclude him for recludere is aperire or to reduce him into the rancke of the sheepe Surely wee doe admitte this argument and whatsoeuer beside is by necessary consecution inferred thereof now no other thing can be inferred but that it is lawfull for the Pastor of the Church by which name we vnderstand the Pope in this place to expell an euill Prince out of the Lords fold and to exclude him that he rest not in the Lords sheepe-cotes with the rest of the Christian flocke that is to say by Ecxommunication to cast him out of the Communion of the Church of the Saints and to depriue him of all the benefites of regeneration in Christ and to deliuer him to Satan vntill hee make lawfull satisfaction for his offence and contumacie And this punishment is wholy spirituall and ecclesiastick and the greatest of all other which the Church hath which he cannot goe beyond no not against a priuate person vnlesse it be to go to the Prince ciuill as being superiour to the offender and beseech him to punish the iniurie offered to the holy mother who for that shee is a nurse of the Church ought to chastice with corporall and ciuill punishments the offenders and rebels to the same But the Church wanteth this temporall aide when as he is the soueraigne Prince himselfe who commits that for which hee may be worthily excommunicate because he hath no superior by no law can be challenged to punishment being free and safe through the Maiestie of his gouernment Therefore although the Pastor of the Church or the Pope may by Excommunication exclude him from the flocke and so depriue him of all his spirituall benefites yet can hee take away from him none of those things which he possesseth and enioyeth by vertue of a temporall and humane interest because goods of that nature are not subiect to Ecclesiastique but to Politique lawes which are in the power of Kings And as no Christian whether Prince or priuate person can auoid the Popes iudgment in spirituall Causes so neither may any subiect of what ranke or place soeuer he be decline the iudgement of his King or Prince in temporall affaires for in that the causes of Clergie persons are committed to other then to ciuill Iudges that was granted them by the singular grace and priuiledge of Princes whereas by the common law Cleriques as wel as Laiques are subiect to the temporall authority of secular Princes And this is grounded on that reason which Bellarmine himselfe deliuers viz. That Clergie persons besides that they are Clergy persons are also Citizens and certain parts of the common wealth politique Hence it is that vnder the best and holiest Christian Princes all the causes of Clergy men as well ciuill as criminall so as they were not Ecclesiasticke were wont to bee debated before ciuill and temporall Magistrates Therefore the Clergy did owe to secular Princes this their liberty which in this point they enioy as we haue declared before in the 15. Chapter Whereby I maruaile that the same Bellarmine doth affirme that the Pope might simply by his owne authority exempt Clergy men by the Canon Law from the subiection of temporall Princes For that I may speake it with the reuerence of so great a man it is as false as false may be Because the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and interest but it should depriue if it should take away against their wils that temporall right and interest which Princes before they became Christians had ouer Clergie men Againe seeing the Pope himselfe hath obtained this exemption of his owne by no other right but by the bounty and grace of Princes For as the aduersaries confesse hee was both de iure and de facto subiect to heathen princes as other Citizens it is an absurd thing to say that he could deliuer others froÌ„ the same subiection Otherwise that might agree to him which the wicked blaspheming Iewes did vpbraid to our Sauiour Christ He hath saued others himselfe he could not saue And in this point the authority of the Fathers in Councels could not be greater then the Popes Therefore this place requireth that wee also conuince an other errour which hath sprung spread very wide out of the decrees of Counsels not diligently and aduisedly considered and which reacheth at this day I know not how farre and to what persons viz. That Councels haue freed Clergy men from the authoritie iurisdiction of Magistrates Which is as far from all truth as may be for it is no where found in any Councell that the Fathers assumed to them so much authority as to depriue secular Judges of their authority and iurisdiction ouer the Clergy or in any sort forbid them to heare and determine the causes of Clergy men being brought before them vnlesse it were after that by the singular bounty of Diuines which began from Iustintanus that priuiledge of Court was granted to Church men For when as these graue Fathers themselues which were present and presidents in Councels were subiect to temporal authority as Saint Augustine teacheth in expositione cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom. it could not bee that they should by their proper authority exempt themselues or others from that subiection Therefore wee must vnderstand that those ancient fathers of the church amongst whom the Ecclesiasticall discipline did flourish with much seuerity and sincerity which at this day is too much neglected vsed all the care and diligence that might bee that the Clergy should carry a light before the people not onely in doctrine but also in inteâ—rity of manners and innocency of life and for that cause that they admonished all Clergy men and decreed and enacted by the Canons of their councels that none of them should bring against another any ciuill or criminall complaint before a secular Iudge but that either they should compose all their controuersies among themselues by the arbitration of friends or if they would not or could not that at least they should end them by the iudgement of the Bishop And surely they ordered their matters in this manner out of the same or surely the very like aduice which S. Paul in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians gaue the Christians forbiding them that they should not draw one an other before the iudgement seates of insidell Iudges and there contend about their differences which we spake of a little before I say out of the same aduice these fathers ordained that if any thing sell out among the Clergy after the
of the 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
vse a temporall authority euen ouer them who haue receiued authoritie ouer others And if any Bishop may doe that much more the Prince of Bishops Thus he And this example also is very farre from the matter in question wherein appeareth neither mention nor so much as any token of a temporall authority of a Bishop ouer an Emperour or any thing else whereby it may be concluded by any probable argument that such an authority doth belong to a Bishop but wholy belongeth to that spirituall authority of a Bishop which we both in heart acknowledge and confesse with the mouth that the pope hath ouer all Christians of what order or place so euer they be Ambrose excommunicated the Emperour for an offence committed by the iniust slaughter of many men doth not this belong to the spirituall iurisdiction of the Church which at this time Ambrose did exercise by his Episcopall authority But he could not excommunicate saieth he vnlesse he had vnderstood and iudged of that cause before although it were criminall and belonged to the externall Court Yes he might de facto as vnaduised Priests doe whome I haue seene sometimes send out an excommunication without tendring of the cause but de iure he ought not otherwise he should haue beene an iniust iudge if he had punished the delinquent party without hearing of the cause But let it be so he vnderstood the cause and iudged him worthy of censure and therefore did excommunicate the Emperour what then But he could not vnderstand and iudge of such a cause saith hee vnlesse also hee had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an Externall Court Alas wee are catched in a snare vnlesse wee beware this peece of sophistry there lurketh in this assertion an exceeding cunning deceit by these words In an Externall Court A Court is twofold Politique or Ciuill and Ecclesiasticke or Spirituall The ciuill Court is wholy externall the Ecclesiasticke is subdiuided into externall and internall The externall Court Ecclesiasticke is wherein the causes belonging to the notice of the Church are openly handled and iudged and if they be criminall punishment is taken of them by ExcoÌ„munication interdiction suspension depositioÌ„ or by other means and oftentimes both the temporall and spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iudge doe heare the same crime euen in the externall Court but each of them in his proper Court and to impose diuers penalties as the ciuill Iudge taketh knowledge of adultery vt sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur The Iudge Eclesiastique also taketh knowledge who hath the care of the soule to admonish the offender of his fault and if he persist in offending to chastise him with spiritualll punishments But the internall Court of the Church which is called the Court of the soule the Court of Poenitencie the Court of Conscience is that wherein the Priest takes notice and iudgeth of the sins reuealed to him by the conscience and in his discretion doth enioine him Poenitency according to the quality of the sinne For now the common opinion is that Poenitential constitutions are arbitrary that not only the Bishop but also any discreete Confessor may regularly moderate and mitigate them in the Court of the soule If therefore Bellarmine by forum externum do vnderstand the Ecclesiasticall Court which is content with spirituall paines onely wee grant all which hee saith For Ambrose was the lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in that Court and that he openly declared in deed and in effect when as hee did excommunicate him But when this is set down and granted there can nothing bee gathered from hence to confirm the temporall authority of Bishop or Pope because aswell the iudgement as the punishment was spirituall But if Bellarmine by forum externum vnderstand the ciuill Court it is most false which he propoundes for as the powers ecclesiasticke and ciuill are distinguished of God so are their Courts dictinct their iudgements distinct For the same Mediator of God and men Christ Iesus hath seuered the offices of each power by their proper actions and distinct dignitus Surely hee doth Ambrose great wrong if he thinke that after hee had obtained the Bishopricke hee heard and iudged criminall causes in a ciuill Court Ambrose then was no lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall ciuil Court which is inough to proue that hee could not iudge or punish the Emperour with any temporall punishment But you will say Ambrose heard and iudged of the slaughter It is true but not as a ciuill and temporall Iudge J say I did not take knowledge of the crime for the same end for which the secular Iudge doth that place out of Aristotle is very good that many may take knowledge of one and the same subiect diuersly and after a diuers manner end and intention Jt is the same right angle which the Geometrician searcheth to vnderstand and the handicrafts man to worke by it So it is the same crime whereof the Laicke Iudge taketh notice that hee may punish the offender by death banishment the purse or by some other temporall punishment and which the ecclesiasticall Iudge knoweth that for the quality of the offence he may enioine spirituall punishment and Penitence At coegit Imperatorem adlegem politicum ferendam viz. he constrained the Emperour to make a ciuill law and therefore hee vsed a temporall authority ouer him A â—est If hee constrained him by what power by feare of what did hee constraine him The summe of the story will teach vs that which is thus Ambrose had cast on Theodosius the band of excommunication from whence when the Emperour desired to be deliuered the graue Prelate denies to doe it before such time as hee see in him some fruit of repentance what paenitence saith he haue you shewed after so hainous a crime or with what medicine haue you cured your grieuons wounde The Emperour answered that it is the office of the Bishop to temper and lay a medicine to the wound that is to say to enioine poenitencie to the sinner but of the Poenitent to vse those medicines which are giuen him that is to say to performe the poenitency enioined vnto him Ambrose hearing this for poenitence and satisfaction he imposed vpon the Emperour the necessity to make this law whereof we speake which being made and enacted for presently the Emperour commaunded the law to bee ordained Ambrose did loose him fram his bonds of excommunication Therefore in this case Ambrose vsed no temporall authoritie against Theodosius but whatsoeuer it was he commaunded by vertue and power of his spirituall iurisdiction neither did the Emperour obey this Prelate for feare of any temporall punishment for if hee would not haue obeied but as wicked Princes sometimes doe had contemned both the excommunication and the absolution Ambrose could goe no further at all But because the godly Prince was carefull for his soule lest hee beeing bound too long with this spirituall chaine might through the long imprisonment gather filthinesse
thought that that excellent Diuine had not sufficiently inough satisfied his ambition when as notwithstanding hee had giuen him a great deale more then he should haue done Besides all these reasons this is somewhat that the chiefe dutie of a story writer consisteth in reporting not in iudging in which regard many who excelled more in remembrance of things done then in iudgement of them applied their thoughts to the historicall narration and contenting themselues with the paked and simple relation onely of all occurrents did leaue indifferent the equity thereof to all mens censures Therefore although wee owe to those men the true knowledge and faithfull report of matters passed which they in their writings reserued and conuaied to posterity yet we apprehend and receiue the equity and iustice of those actions not from the commendation of the writers but either from the authority of the scriptures or traditions of the Apostles or the ancient decrees of the Church or lastly from the right rule of naturall reason And so here will be the point alwaies to enquire and examine the equity of euery action and to search diligently not what the author of a story hath praised or dispraised but what ought to bee praised or dispraised by good right and desert Therefore I stand not much vpon examples which neither are found and commended in the Scriptures nor are not proued to be worthy commendation by some of those waies at the least which we haue set downe For assuredly it is a very dangerous matter for a man to propound to himselfe examples to imitate being not before weighed in this ballance and by these waights seeing that they that apply themselues to reade monuments of antiquity shall more often light vpon more euill examples then good and vertuous For which cause the Emperour doth grauely admonish all Iudges non exemplis sed legibus esse iudicandum and that in all businesses they ought not to follow that which hath been by great Magistrates before them sed veritatem legum iustitiae vestigia These considerations aduise me not to dwell verie long vpon the prolixe and exquisite discussion and examination of the rest of the Examples produced by Bellarmine vnlesse I shall obserue peraduenture that there is somewhat couched in them whereby the vnwary Reader may be ensnared vnder a pretence and opinion of a truth Therefore for some of them let vs see which and what they be The fift is of Gregory the II. saith he who forbad tribute to be paid by the Italians to the Emperour Leo the Image-breaker being excommunicate by him and by that meanes cut a part of his Empire from him Surely I thinke in this example the truth of the businesse as it passed is not set downe although I know it is so reported by certaine Writers of storie And that which induceth me to thinke so is both the excellent learning of that Pope ioined with a speciall integritie of life and also the testimony of Platina in this matter who amongst all the worthy actions of that Pope reporteth this that by his owne authoritie hee withstood the Italians being willing to fall away from that impious Prince and to chuse another Emperour ouer them For so writeth Platina But then the Emperour Leo the Third when hee could not openly inueigh against the Pope publisheth an Edict that all they who were vnder the Roman Empire should dispatch and carrie cleane away out of the Churches the Statues and Images of all Saints Martyrs and Angels to take away Idolatrie as he said and he that did otherwise he would hold him for a publike enemie or Traitor But Gregorie doth not onely not obey so great impietie but also admonisheth all Catholikes that they would not in any sort commit so great an errour through the feare or Edict of the Prince With which cohortation the people of Italie was so encouraged that they went very neere to chuse another Emperour but Gregorie laboured with all the power he could that it should not be And Platina addeth that this Pope as a most holy man often admonished the Emperour by Letters that he would let goe the errours of some ill disposed persons about him and embrace the true faith at the length and that he would forbeart to destroy the Images of the Saints by whose memorie and example men might be stirred vp to the imitation of vertue I doe giue credit to this Author in this point aboue other more ancient Writers especially strangers the rather for that he by the Commandement of Sixtus Quintus a Pope hath written the Popes liues and that at Rome where he was furnished with many helpes of ancient Monuments to finde out the truth of matters that passed in the Citie and in Italie which others wanting as appeareth did receiue nothing but vncertain reports and scattered rumours of men who many times report that to be done which they would faine haue done for a certaine and cleere truth If Platina had in silence passed ouer the former part of the storie surely hee had confirmed as it were by a secret consent the opinion of these men who haue otherwise written of Gregorie But seeing that hee was not ignorant that they had written so being a man much conuersant in those stories and yet notwithstanding doth with a plaine contradiction impugne their opinion it is very probable that hee had farre better and more assured testimonies in the relation of those things which were done by this Pope Wherefore it seemeth more reasonable and more agreeable to the truth to follow Platina in this matter and to note a lie in the writings of Zonaras seeing it is prooued in experience that they are deceiued many times who from the relation of others doe commit to writing the sayings and doings of people that liued farre from them then to blot the innocent life of an excellent Pope with a filthie spot of iniustice and rebellion For albeit it bee true that according to his spirituall authoritie ouer all hee might worthily excommunicate this Emperour yet he might not prohibit that the people being subiect to the Romane Empire should not giue tribute to Cesar or pay their customes to the Emperour so long as he continued Emperour without the manifest breach of the Law of God and of the Doctrine of the Gospell And it is certaine that this Leo although impious continued Cesar vnto his death not deposed from his Empire either by the people or by the Pope Therefore I say that it is false which the Magdeburgers Centuriators doe write that this Pope who was famous both for Doctrine and life was a Traitour to his Country I say also that it is false which Bellarmine propounds in the former example that the Pope did set a Fine or Mulct vpon Leo Isaurus Iconumachus to a part of his Empire for hee practised no mischiefe as appeareth by this storie of Platina neither against the Country nor against the Prince Now followeth the sixth CHAP. XLI
THe sixth is of Zacharie saith hee who being desired by the Nobilitie of France deposed Childerique and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus to be created King in his place Before I speake any thing of this example it is worth my paines to vnfold the darke storie touching the same and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie ioining the circumstances on both sides together with the opinion for proofe whereof it is brought and by this meane it may more easily appeare to the Reader how small strength it hath to confirme the proposition of the aduersaries First of all therefore in that story it is worthy the obseruation that Childerique and diuers other Meroningians that were Kings before him raigning without any authoritie at all in their Kingdomes had nothing but the vaine and idle name of a King For the treasure and power of the State were in the hands of the Officers who were called the Maiors of the Palace and who indeede swaied the whole gouernment of the Kingdome who were so much aboue the Kings and ordered and gouerned them as the King possessed nothing of his owne besides the idle name of the King and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life which the Maior of the Palace made him in his discretion but one poore Lordship in the Country of a small reuenew and in that a house where hee kept a few seruants to attend him for his necessarie seruices and to wait vpon him as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemaine If any then doe looke more neerely into the matter he shall finde that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France one who like the King in the â—hesse had onely the name of a King but no kingly authoritie as Atmoinus speaketh but the other who was called the Maior of the Palace in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdome He in name onely was vnder the King but in authoritie and power ouer the King so as he wanted nothing but the name for the full and absolute Maiestie of ruling and raigning which also at the last was giuen him by the people that the soueraigne gouernment which he swaied might be signified by the title of a soueraigne honour Therfore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel father of Pipine who ouerthrew a huge Armie of Saracens rushing into France out of Spaine King Charles saith hee hauing beaten and ouercome the armies of his enemies vnder Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victorie returned home in safetie into France the seat of his gouernment Marke how he calles the Maior of the palace a King by reason of that royall authority which he bare Secondly in that storie is to bee obserued that the Nobilitie of France being weary of the slothfulnesse of their idle Kings did with a wonderfull consent conuert their eies and hearts to Pipine Maior of the Palace sonne to Charles which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdome that hee openly without nicenesse affected the name of a King which that hee might more easily compasse without mislike and displeasure of the Commons he resolued that the Pope was first to be dealt withall by an Embassadour and his assent to be required iudging indeede as the truth was that if the Pope should giue his assent that the Commons would easily rest in his iudgement by reason of the holinesse and reuerend opinion of the See Apostolique Thirdly we must vnderstand that Zacharie the Pope was generally aduised withall in the cause of the Kings which raigned at that time in France whether ought to bee called King he who had only the name of a King and no royall authoritie or he who by his industrie and wisdome did manage and gouerne all the affaires of the State and that hee the same Pope answered generally againe that it were better that he should be called King in whom the soueraigne authoritie did reside by which answer the Nobilitie being induced doe elect Pipine King There is no question but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi that is in particular that Childerique was to bee abandoned who carried onely the false name of a King and that Pipine was in his place to bee aduanced to the Crowne But I suppose that hee answered so generally for that the proposition being deliuered in generall tearmes carried no note of any certaine person and left to the Nobilitie of France their iudgement entire and free to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique but gaue his assent with the Deposers But because his consent was especially regarded therfore certaine Historians doe precisely say that hee deposed Childerique Lastly in that storie it must be seriously and diligentlie weighed that Zacharie the Pope hauing heard Pipinus his Embassadours touching the change of the Kingdome and deposition of Childerique iudged it to bee a matter of such noueltie and difficultie also as at the first hee durst not entertaine the thought of so great an enterprise although that by this time he had vnderstood sufficiently that the sloth and idlenesse of the Merouingians did greatly endammage the Church and Christian Common-wealth vntill such time as hee was certainely perswaded and saw that the whole nobility of France did fauour Pipin and desire him for their King and moreouer that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merouingians without children so dull and blockish That he could not tell how to grieue for the losse of his kingdome as was fit for him neither was there any that would mone his case These were the inducements which being ioined with a speciall loue affection which the Pope did beare to Pipine for that he and his father Charles had with many good offices deserued well of the Church of Rome and Apostolicke Sea did moue Zacharie to essent to the French who desired this change of their Kings These things although they be in this manner written touching this businesse yet haue we great cause to doubt of the iustice of that fact I know that Bellarmine in other places out of too much good opinion of the equity of this fact of Zachary doth boldly affirme that no sober man wil deny that that Act was iust But he alledgeth nothing but that the wisest man liuing may affirm for all that that it was iniust I say he brings no probable and forcible reason whereby a wise man may perswade himselfe that the Pope did iustly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke since that in no case we ought to doe ill that good although it be very great may come thereof Now wee haue sufficienly declared that for a lawfull King to bee deposed by his owne subiects or to consent to the deposers seeing hee hath God onely aboue him to whome onely he is bound to yeeld account of his actions is by it selfe and simply euill And the two reasons which he vseth