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
that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall Thus he Which that I may satisfie in order I answere that it is very false which in this first reason is thrust vpon vs for a true certaine and sound foundation false I say that the Ciuill power is subiect to the Spirituall since both of them is a part of the Christian common weale vnlesse they vnderstand it thus that it is subiect in spirituals and againe that this ought to be subiect to that in temporals since these two powers are so parts of the Christian common-weale as neither hath authoritie ouer other as which when they were free and of themselues absolute out of a mutuall loue closed together Therefore each of them acknowledgeth and reuerenceth the other in his order and office and each doth exercise her function at her pleasure only there is between them a certaine consent and fellowship conspiring in the conseruation and maintenance of the Christian common-weale for by both the powers or to vse Geneâ—rardes wordes by both the Magistraâ—tes Ecclesiastike and 〈◊〉 the Church is maintained defended and flourisheth which that she might be protected and preserued tyght and vpright alterius sic Altera pâ—â—â—it opemres coniurat amiâ—â— that as long as they keepe this societie the Christian common weale is like to flourish and abound with innumerable commodities of concord and peace But when they dissolue this combination thus contracted certainely the spirituall power though it excell with a diuine vertue yet being now weakned in the ere of the world and depriued of his corporall helpes for the most part is contemned and the temporall although it be mightie and strong hastneth thorough all villanie and surie to her owne destruction being destitute of heauenly grace which she enioyed by the societie of the spirituall power Notwithstanding neither can the power Ecclesiastike redresse her wrongs the more by her selfe but by spirituall weapons nor the temporall power worke vpon the Ecclesiastike but by visible and corporall armes whereof I would to God that both the monuments of former times and also our owne age memorie did not put vs in minde thorough so many lamentable examples And this surely is no other thing then that which I said before Hosius said to Constantius the Arrian 〈…〉 lawfull for us to hold any Empire on earth neither haue you power oner sacrifices and holy things being an Emperour and which S. Bernard to Eugenius the Pope These law and earthly businesses haue Iudges Kings and Princes of the earth Why doe you inuade an others borders why reach you your sithe into another mans haruest Therefore these two powers Ecclesiastike and Politike are not so parts of the Christian common-weale that one should be Master ouer the other but so are parts as which when they were single and deuided one from the other with a singular concord and vnion ioyned together at the last that each of them might afford helpe and succour to the other and by mutuall and enterchanged courtesies and offices might oblige and demerit one another Neither is it to be granted because the power Ecclesiastike is holier and worthier then the Politike therefore that this is subiect to her but onely as it often commeth to passe in a ciuill societie that she being the worthier and the richer applied herselfe to this which is neither so noble nor so wealthy for the benefit of them both so as both of them remaine free in that societie and neither depend any way of other Therfore excellently writes Driedâ— to this purpose Christ saith he seuered the duties of these two powers that the one might gouerne diuine and spirituall matters and persons the other prefane and worldly and after Behold thou plainly sees that Christ hath seuered the duties of both the powers Therefore the distinction of the Ecclesiasticall power Papall from the secular and Imperiall power is made by the law of God And after in the same chapter From whence the Pope and the Emperour are in the Church not as two chiefe Rulers diuided betweene themselues wherof neither knoweth other or reuerenceeth as his superiour for this ought to acknowledge and reuerence him inspirituall cases and he this in temporal and according to the old Glosse in Caâ— Hadrian 63. as he is father to this in spirituals so is this to him in temporals because a kingdome diuided against itselfe will come to ruine Nor againe are they as two Iudges subordinate so as the one receiues his iurisdiction from the other But they are as two rulers who are the Ministers of one God â—esigned 〈…〉 diuers offices so as the Emperour â—ouerns 〈…〉 persons for a peaceable Society in this world and the Pope rules spiritual to the aduancement of Christian faith and charitie But Bellarmine also himselfe Marke quoth he that the Sunne and theâ— Moone is not the same Starre and as the Sunne did not constitute the Moone but God so also that the Pontificate and 〈…〉 is not the same nor one absolutely depend on the other Surely the Sunne and the Moone are two great lightes when Pope Innocent 〈◊〉 interpreteth by an allegory Two dignities which are the Pontificall authority and regall power and compares that to the Sunne this to the Moone From whence I reason on this manner As the Moone is no lesse the Moone nor consisteth the lesse of hirselfe when shee departs from the Sunne and by wandering looseth the light shee borrowed on him then when shee is enlightned with his beames in herfull Orbe and Aspect and in neither regard either shee depends of him or he of hir but both holding the order and manner of their institution doe seruice both to God and the world so also the Kingly or Politike power resting on hir proper strength subâ—â—teth alâ—aies by hirselfe and although she receiue great light 〈◊〉 the Pontifical and spirituall power to liue well and 〈◊〉 yet is not changed at all hir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Essence 〈…〉 her approach nor by her departure nor 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 much lesse is shee subiect to her when shee 〈◊〉 to her Now it remaineth that we seuerally declare the faultes of the reasons wherewith Bellarmine supposeth that his first reason is vnderpropped CHAP. XIIII THerefore touching the first I doe constantly deny that there is any such ordination or subordination of the endes of their powers so farre as their powers are such For the end of Politike or Ciuill power so far as it is politike absolutely containeth no more then a temporall 〈◊〉 I meane the Common-good and a well ordered tranquillity for the quiet conduct of life as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth in another place The Ciuill power saith he hath her Princes Lawes Iudges c. and likewise the Ecclesiastike her Bishops Canons Iudgements That hath for end a temporall peace this eternall saluation Neither doth this Ciuill power proceed further and is referred to none other end as it is such For in that it
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
list the Annals and Records of all Nations let him read through all Scriptures and Stories he shall finde amongst them no one step whereby it may be gathered that those christian Princes when they gaue their names to the Church did submit their Scepters to the Pope and did specially and by name a bandon their soueraigne temporall Magistracie But it must appeare that Princes wittingly and knowingly did descend and giue themselues into the dition and authoritie temporall of the Pope or we must confesse that as much as concerned regall dignitie they remained after Baptisme in the same power and condition wherein they were before they receiued holy imitation of Christianitie for as he witnesseth himselfe the law of Christ depriues no man of his right and peculiar fee. But before they gaue their name to Christ of right and in fact as he saith they exercised ciuill authoritie ouer the Pope and might lawfully iudge him in temporall Cases therefore they might likewise doe it lawfully after Baptisme Which if it be so it cannot be by any meanes that they should be iudged by him in temporall matters seeing it is impossible that any man should bee superiour and inferiour in the same kind of authoritie and in respect of one and the same thing It is true that those christian Princes for the reuerence they bare not onely to the Pope but also to all other Bishops yea and Priests also did very seldome put that iudgement in practise But this argues a want of will onely and not of power also Wherefore as a Consul or President when he yeelds himselfe to adoption transferres none of those rights which belong to him by his office into the familie and power of his adoptiue father neither can transferre them but reserues them all entirely to himselfe so Princes in the beginning hauing deliuered themselues into the spirituall adoption of the ecclesiastike Hierarchie could by that act loose none of those things which belonged to the right of a kingdome and their publike ciuill estate for that the nature of these powers is deuided so as although being yoaked and coupled together they did very htlv and handsomely frame together in the same christian Common-wealth yet neither of them as it is such is subiect or master to the other and neither doth necessarilie follow and accompanie the other but each may be both obtained and also lost or kept without the other But now because the learned Bellarmine is very much delighted with similitudes and besides prooues thi common opinion de indirect a potestate temporals summ◠Pontificis by no testimonie either of Scriptures or of ancient Fathers but onely by certaine reasons fetched a simili a very poore and weake foundation to build a demonstration vpon I thinke I shall not doe amisse by a similitude of much more fitnesse to confirme also our opinion of this matter The sonne of the familie although he goe to warres and beare publike office and charge is by the law of God and man subiect to his Father in whose sacred houshold power he is yet abiding And againe the father who hath this power ouer his sonne is subiect to his sonne as a magistrate but 〈◊〉 another kind of power For the one as he is a Parent challengeth authority ouer his sonne whereby he may correct chastise and punish him offending and committing any thing against the lawes of the family or practising any thing against himselfe or otherwise doing that which is vnworthy and vnfitting a good sonne not by the right of a Magistrate but by the authority of his fatherly power and not with euery kind of punishment but only with certaine which are allowed by the law Therefore if his sonne deserue ill he may disherit him cast him out of the house depriue him of the right of the family and kindred and chastise him with other domesticall remedies But he can not disanull his Magistracy nor take from him his goods in the campe nor condemne him by a publike iudgement neither inflict any other mulct or paine due for his fault by the law either directly or indirectly because this course exceedeth the measure and iurisdiction of a fatherly power But the other although a sonne and obliged by the fathers bond yet as he is a Magistrate in publike authority ruleth ouer his father and in publike affaires and euen in priuate so be it they be not domesticall may command him as well as other Citizens If there be a sonne of a family saith Vlpian and beare an office he may constraine his father in whose power he is suspectum dicentem haereditatem adire restituers From hence if the sonne of the family be Consul or President he may either be emancipated or giuen into adoption before himselfe For which cause the father is no lesse bound then if he were a stranger not only to obey his sonne being in office but also to rise to him and to honor him with all the respect and honor which belongeth to the Magistrate In the very same manner the Pope who is the spirituall father of all Christians by his fatherly Ecclesiastike power as the Vicar of Christ doth command Kings and Princes as well as the rest of the faithfull and in that respect if Kings commit any thing against God or the Church he may sharply chastise them with spirituall punishments cast them out of the house and family of God and disinherit them of the kingdome of heauen most fearefull and terrible punishments for christian hearts to thinke on because all these things are proper to his fatherly power spirituall But neither can he take from them temporall principality and domination nor inflict ciuill punishments vpon them because he hath obtained no ciuill and temporall iurisdiction ouer them by which such manner of chastisement ought to be exercised as also for that the fatherly power spirituall wherewith the Pope is furnished is very far diuided from the ciuill and temporall in ends offices and euen in persons also For God as he hath committed spirituall power to the Pope and the other Priests so also hath he giuen the ciuill by an euerlasting 〈◊〉 tion to the King and the Magistrates which be vnder him There is no power but of God To this place belongs that ancient glosse which the Cardinall of Cusa writes that it was assured to the Canon Hadrianus Papa 63. in which Canon it is deliuered that the Pope with the whole Synod granted to Charles the great the honor of the Patriciate For the glosse said that a Patrician was a father to the Pope in temporalities as the Pope was his father in spiritualities And the same Cardinall in the same booke speaking of the electers of the Germane Emperors from whence the electors saith he who in the time of Henry the second were appointed by the common consent of all the Almans and others who were subiect to the Empire haue a radicall power from that common consent
of all men who might by the law of nature constitute an Emperor ouer them not from the Bishop of Rome who hath no authority to giue a King or Emperor to any Prouince in the world without the consent of the same The same Cardinall being himselfe both a great Diume and Philosopher addeth many other things in that place by which he confirmes our distinction and declares that Emperors and Kings are both ouer and vnder the Popes And thus much touching the first reason of Bellarmine and the arguments brought by him to prooue the same CHAP. XVII THe second reason followes which is concluded by two fould arguments The second reason saith he the Ecclesiastike Common-weale ought to be perfect and in it selfe sufficient in order to her end For such are all Common-weales rightly founded therefore ought shee to haue all power necessary to attaine her end But the power to vse and to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to this Spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might with impunity nourish Heretikes and ouerturne religion therefore shee hath this power also Againe euery Common-wealth because it ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe may command another Common-wealth which is not subiect to it and constraine it to change the Gouernment yea euen to depose hir Prince and to appoint another when it cannot otherwise defend it selfe from hir ininries therefore much more may the Spirituall Common-weale command the Temporall Common-weale being subiect to hir and force it to change the Gouernment and to depose the Princes and appoint others seing she cannot otherwise maintaine hir Spirituall good I answer that heere are so many faults in this place as it seemeth that the Author did either idlely and carelesly transcribe all this out of some other or if it be all his owne that he did not very well remember those things which he had said before For a little before when as he laboured by another argument to prooue that the Ciuill power is subiect to the Ecclesiastike he affirmed that these powers were parts only of one Common-wealth and that they did constitute only one Common-wealth The first reason saith he is thus The Ciuill power is subiect to the Spirituall power because each of them is a part of the same Christian Common-wealth And againe secondly Kings Bishops and Clerikes and Laikes do not make two Common-wealthes but one But in this place he quite changes these two Powers into two Common-wealthes which therefore ought to be so seuered and disioyned as that Kings and Laikes doe make a Politike and Temporall Common-wealth Bishops and Clerikes a Spirituall or Ecclesiastike then which nothing could be spoken more absurdly or vnfitly for the present purpose For either he speaketh in this place of an Ecclesiastike power which is wholy seuered from the Ciuill power as it was once in the time of the Apostles and now is in those places where Christians laie amongst Heathen and Infidesl in which case it is euident that the Power or Common-wealth Ecclesiastike as he calles it or the Prince and Hierarch thereof hath no authority at all not so much as Spirituall ouer the Ciuill Prince because he is not a child of the Church Or he speakes of the power Ecclesiastike ioyned with the Ciuill as in a Christian Common-wealth and then hee doth wrong to make hir two Common-wealthes one Ecclesiastike and the other Politike when as they be onely two powers of one Christian Common-wealth and parts and members of one Church and Misticall body of Christ as himselfe deliuered before Further it is fals which he assumes That the power to vse to dispose of temporall matters is necessary to a spiritual end c. For the Prince of the Apostles himselfe openly teacheth that he had no such manner of authority ouer the temporalities of Christians except those which themselues of their owne accord did confer and offer to the Church when he saith Ananias why hath Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the holy Spirit and defraud of the price of the field Whilest it remained did it not belong to thee and being sould was it not in thy power If the Apostles had had power to dispose of the temporalties of Christians Peter surely had not said Did it not c. and when as Ananias might presently haue replied yes you had power to dispose of my goods and therefore fearing least you would take from mee more then was cause I concealed part of the price But because the Church had not this power therefore without cause did he lye to the holy Ghost And how if out of this foundation of Bellarmine it should follow that the primitiue Church had not all necessarie power to attaine vnto her end for for the space of 300 yeeres and more wherein she liued vnder heathen Princes after the passion of Christ she neuer had this power to dispose of Christians temporalties in which time notwithstanding it is most certaine that an infinite multitude of men and almost the greatest part of the world had giuen their names to Christ and that a more seuere and strict discipline raigned in the Church then at any time beside that it is impious to say that the Church was not then furnished with all necessarie meanes of Right and of Fact to attaine her end for the workes of God are perfect And surely he should doe Christ no small iniurie who thinkes that the Church is by him left and deliuered to the Apostles destitute of necessarie meanes for her preseruation Whatsoeuer was necessarie for the Church to attaine her end was abundantly and plentifully bestowed by Christ on his Apostles when he said Ego dabo vobis os sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere contradicere omnes aduersarij vestri Therfore whosoeuer conceiues that Christ recommended his Church to Peter and willed him thrice to feede his Lambes and Sheepe and supposeth that for the feeding of those sheepe and to the accomplishing of the end of his commandement he did not grant them all things necessarie both in Right and in Fact hee seemes to me no better then an Atheist and to doubt of the prouidence power and goodnesse of God Let vs imagine that he did not giue all power necessarie for the execution of so great a charge can any other reason why he did not be assigned then for because either the Lord knew not what was needfull or had no abilitie in him to giue it or which is a point of extreame malice he meant to deceiue his seruants and friends by enioyning that dutie vnto them which hee knew very well that they were neuer able to performe By these things it is cleare that the temporall authoritie and power to depose Princes is no way necessarie for the Church to attain her end although in humane consideration it may seeme sometimes to be profitable For God who hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and
hath chosen the weake things of the world to confound the strong knowing that his Church only stood in need of spirituall armes did so from the beginning furnish her with them that she ouercame all humane power and might so as it might be said truly a Domino factum est illud est mirabile in oculis nostris S. Bernard writeth excellently as hee doth alwaies to Eugenius the Pope This is Peter who was not at any time knowen to walke clad in silkes or adorned with precious stones not couered with gold nor caried on a white steed nor waited on with a guard of souldiers nor compassed with troups of seruants attending on him and yet he thought that without these that wholesome Commandement might be discharged Siamas me pasce oues meas heerein thou hast succeeded not to Peter but to Constantine Therefore although the temporall power whereof we speake may seeme to men to be necessarie for the Church yet to God it seemed neither necessarie nor profitable peraduenture for that reason which the successe of matters and experience it selfe hath taught the posteritie least the Apostles and their successors trusting on humane authoritie should more negligently intend spirituall matters and should chiefly place their hope in armes and in a temporall authoritie and might which they ought to settle in the power of the word of God and in his singular helpe And indeed if a man would take a view in Storie of the state of the Church from the passion of Christ to this day he shall see altogether that she grew very soone and flourished very long vnder Bishops that were content with their owne authoritie that is with spirituall iurisdiction who being the Disciples of the humilitie of Christ iudged that the onely strength to defend the Church did consist in the power of preaching the Gospell and the diligent obseruation of Ecclesiastike Discipline without any mention of temporall power And againe â—â—om the time that certaine Popes went about to annex and adioine a soueraigne temporall gouernment to that spiritual soueraigntie which they had that the Church decased euery day both in the number of beleeuers and behauiour and vertue of gouernours and that same seueritie of the ancient discipline being either remitted or to speake more truely being omitted that many Ministers of the Church discharged their places more slothfully and carelesly then before I omit that if these mens reasons were good it would follow by contraries that the temporall common wealth as they speake hath power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the soueraigne Prince of the Ecclesiastike common wealth because It ought to be perfect and sufficient in it selfe in order to her end and to haue all power necessary to attaine to her end But the power to dispose of spirituall matters and to depose the Prince Ecclesiastike is necessary to the temporall end because otherwise wicked Ecclesiasticall Princes may trouble the state and quiet of a temporall common wealth and hinder the end of the ciuill gouernment as indeed diuerse Popes haue been causes of much vnquietnesse Therefore the temporall Common-wealth hath this power The consecution is vtterly false and absurd for a temporall Prince as he is such a one hath no spirituall power and therefore the other is false too to which this by analogie is a consequent But as we vse to speake dare absurdum non est soluere argumentum Therefore I doe answer otherwise to the former part of this second reason That here be not two common weales as he supposeth but one only wherein there be two powers or two Magistrates the Ecclesiastike and the Politike whereof each hath those things which he doth of necessity require to attaine his end the one his spirituall the other his temporall iurisdiction and that neither this iurisdiction is necessary to that power nor that for this Otherwise we must confesse that each power is destitute of her necessary meanes then when they were seuered as sometimes they were which I haue already shewed to be very false as well out of the end of the temporall or ciuill gouernment at it is such as by the state of the Church being established vnder heathen and infidell Princes According to this manner in one and the same ciuill policie I meane in one City or kingdome many magistrates are found inuested with diuerse offices power and authority who gouerne the common weale committed to them in parts euery one of whom receiueth from the King or common wealth necessary power to attaine the end of their charge so as none of them may or dare inuade and arrogate to themselues the iurisdiction and rule of an other If the Consuls want any part of the Tribunes power or the Tribunes any of the Consular iurisdiction it can not be said therefore that both haue need of an others power to compasse their ends for each office according to the ground of the first institution is perfect and furnished with all necessary authority for the execution of his charge Or to bring forth more known examples As in one kingdome and vnder one King there are two great offices whereof the one the Chancellor the other the Constable hath by commission from the King the one hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the speciall charge of the law and iustice the other the managing of armes and the gouernment of all military discipline committed to him and each of them according to the quality and condition of his office is absolute and receiueth from the King all authority necessary for the execution of his charge and the compassing of his end Neither if peraduenture one of them either of negligence or iniury doe hinder the course of the other may he that is so hindred by his proper authority disanull his office or vsurpe his iurisdiction or to be short enforce him to amend his fault but by lawfull meanes granted him by commission from the King but it is requisite that each complaine to the King of others abuse of whom they haue receiued their authority so distinguished in offices and function that he may right him that is wronged and determine by his owne power and iudgement the diuision of the whole cause Now so long as these officers doe agree in the kingdome the one maintaines an others authority and vseth of his owne to supply that which is wanting in the other But if a Country-man to auoid iudgement of law doe depart into the Campe to the Army the aide of the Martiall at armes being required he is wont to be sent backe to the place from whence he fled and of the contrary if one that forsakes his Coloures shall slip into the City the City Magistrate being requested by the Magistrate at armes will by and by see him conueighed to the Campe to be punished for his misdemeanour But where they doe disagree they giue those wounds to the Common-wealth which the Prince onely can helpe and cure because
Propositions and therefore if we grant them it cannot bee denied Therefore all this is true and wee grant it all but yet that which hee annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion is neither agreeable nor consequent which is that the Pastor may enioine the people c. For to be able or not to be able posse where the right and equity is disputed ought to bee vnderstoode not of the mere act but of the power which is lawfully permitted and which agreeth with law and reason So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that which hee is able to doe iustly and honestly And so the matter is brought about as we are enforced to enquire whether the Pope by the plenitude of his Apostolicke power as they speake can command enioine subiects that they dare not be so bold as to obey the edicts commandements lawes of their Prince vnder paine of excommunication And if he shall de facto commaund the law whether the Subiects are bound to obey any such commandement of the Pope Surely as I touched in the beginning for the Affirmatiue I could neuer in my life either my selfe find a waighty argument nor light vpon any inuented by an other But the contrary proposition is strongly maintained being built vpon the foundation which we spake of ere while viz. That the Pope cannot in any sort dispense against a law of nature and of God Vpon which ground is raised a most firme argument in my opinion which is concluded in this forme The Pope can commaund or dispense in nothing against the law Naturall and Diuine But to commaund or dispense in the matter of subiection and obedience due to Princes is against law naturall and Diuine Ergo The Pope cannot commaund or dispense in the same and by consequence cannot commaund the subiects that they doe not obey their temporall Prince in that wherein the Prince is superiour to him and if he shall de facto commaund it shall be lawfull for the subiects to disobey him with safety and good conscience as one that presumes to giue lawes without the compasse of his territory or iurisdiction Both the Propositions are most certaine Out of which the Conclusion is induced by a necessary consecution He that shall weaken the force of this Argument shall doe mee a very great pleasure and make me beholding to him For my part that I may ingenuously confesse my slender wit I doe not see in the world how it can bee checked by any sound reason for though it may bee said that obedience due to a superiour may bee restrained and hindered by him who is superiour to that superiour and that the Pope who is Father of all Christians is superiour to all Kings and Princes Christian in this that he is Father and therefore that hee may of his owne authority inhibite and restraine that the subiects doe not performe the reuerence and obedience due and promised to the Prince yet this reason is like a painted ordinance not able to beat down the strength of the former conclusion Seeing this which is said that obedience du to a superiour may be diminished or restrained or taken away by his commaundement who is superiour to that superiour this is true onely then when he who forbiddeth it is superiour in the same kind and line of power and superiority or in those things wherein obedience is due As for example the King may take frō the Lieutenant of his Armie his commaund and giue charge that the Armie obey him no more and the Lieutenant may vpon cause commaund that the souldier obey not the Tribune nor the Tribune the Centurion nor the Centurion the Decurion For that all these in the same kind I meane about militarie gouernment discipline but one aboue an other are superiour according to the order of dignity The same is true in the orders of the heauenly warfare and of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchie But the obedience of the subiects towards the Prince whereof wee speake consisteth in temporall matters wherein the Popes themselues confesse that there is none aboue the Prince But if none bee aboue him in temporalities surely it followeth that there is none that may forbid or hinder the subiection and obedience which is due to him from his subiects in temporalities I haue shewed aboue that these powers the spirituall and temporall are so distinct that neither as it is such doth commaund or serue the other And that they are not to be regarded who flie to their starting holes of distinctions and quirkes or rather those snares of verball captions by these words directè indirectè For it is most sure that hee hath a superiour in temporalties whome an other may in any sort commaund a-about temporall matters or who in temporall causes may bee iudged directly or indirectly by an other For iudgement is giuen of one against his will And no man is iudged but of his superiour Because an equall hath no commaund ouer an equall And indeed for the effect and issue of the matter there is no difference at all whether one haue authority and power ouer an other directly or indirectly For in those wordes directè indirectè or if you please directly and obliquely the difference is propounded to vs onely in the maner and way or order of obtaining and comming by the former but not in the liberty force and effect of exercising and executing the same But good God what can bee said more vnreasonably or more contrary to the selfe then this that a King hath no superiour in temporalties but is free from all bands of offences nor is brought to punishment by any lawes which all antiquitie and the whole Church hath euer held and againe that the Pope vpon cause or in some manner that is to say Indirectly is superiour to the King in temporalties and may punish him with temporall punishments that is with losse of kingdom rule yea life also For after that he is once defected thrown down from his throne by the Pope and reduced to the condition of a priuate man what remaineth but that he should vndergoe the last issue of this malice and that is either to prouide for his safety by speedy flight and so liue a miserable life out of his Countrey or if hee doe not in this manner prouide for himselfe bee will forthwith bee arraigned and conuinced in publike iudgment and then fall into the hands of a Gaoler or an Executioner and so there will be an end of him Now there is in this power which these good fellowes doe attribute indirectly to the Pope a soueraigne free and vncontrolled libertie to oppresse and to exercise tyrannie euen ouer good and innocent Kings For first of all they ordaine That it belongeth to the Pope to iudge if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed Secondly that there is no appeale from his iudgement Because he alone iudgeth all
subiect to the Temporall authoritie of secular Princes in those seuerall Countries wherein they liue and are punishable by the said Princes as well as other lay subiects in all cases that are not meerclie Spirituall Chap. 34. He returnes to the particular answere of Bellarmine his argument and sheweth that Excommunication workes onely so farre as to exclude from the companie of the faithfull but not to depriue Princes of any temporall estate Chap. 35. He propoundeth certaine reasons of Nicholas Sanders which had been omitted by Bellarmine for the establishing of the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes Chap. 36. He answereth the said reasons of Sanders touching Samuel and Saul 2. Touching Ahias the Shilonite 3. Touching Elias 4. Touching Elizeus his sword as reasons forged either of malice against the Prince then with whom he was angrie or of affection to the then Pope or some other fume of braine they haue so small colour to proue his purpose Chap. 37. He discusseth other examples alleaged by Bellarmine and first that of Ozias the King of Iuda and herein he taxeth Bellarmine his slight dealing to transcribe out of other mens collections such matters as they haue either negligently or maliciouslie wrested against the direct and pregnant storie of the Scriptures as appeareth in this example Chap. 38. He discusseth another example touching Athalia and Ioiadas the high Priest which hee sheweth to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and nothing attailing to conclude his purpose Chap. 39. He discusseth a third example from Ambrose Bishop of Millane and Theodosius the Emperour and maketh it plaine how little it makes for the Popes authoritie temporall ouer Emperours and Kings Chap. 40. Hee answereth Bellarmines examples of the latter Popes first by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preuention out of Sotus That the act of Popes makes not an Article of the faith Secondly by the testimonie of Platina he conuinceth the whole storie related by Bellarmine touching Pope Gregorie the 2 and Leo the 3 Emperour of vntruth Chap. 41. He answereth another instance of Bellarmine touching Pope Zacharie and Chilperique King of France the very explication of which whole businesse is refutation sufficient to frustrate Bellarmine his purpose in alleaging the same to winne any temporall authoritie to Popes ouer Christian Princes GVIL BARCLAII I. C. Of the Authoritie of the Pope whether and how farre forth he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber Posthumus MAny men haue written of this Argument especially in our time diuersly and for diuers respects but none more learnedly and cleerely then the most woorthie Cardinall and most learned Diuine Rob. Bellarmine in those bookes which he hath written of the chiefe or Romane Bishop Who as he hath notably prooued the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power of the Bishop of Rome so if he could haue confirmed with more sound weight of authorities and reasons that temporall power which hee affirmeth out of the opinion of certaine Diuines that hee hath there were nothing in that Treatise which might iustly be reprehended or required by any man If therefore many both Diuines and Ciuilians one after another haue emploied themselues in the discussing of this question and the iudgement of the former writers thereof hath beene no preiudice to the opinion of them which followed why should not I also since I haue spent my time in this studie challenge after a sort by a peculiar interest some place in the searching of the truth it selfe But before I beginne to shew what I thinke of this matter there must some care and diligence be vsed by me by way of Prouision Least either any weak ones should conceaue any scandall who esteeme the Pope to bee a God who hath all power in heauen and earth that I may vse Gerson◠words or any aide seeme to come to the calumnies of the Nouators wherewith they prosecute the Apostolike sea that they might depriue the chiefe Pastor of souls of all his authoritie Therefore the Reader must vnderstand thus much that I doe beare to that Sea all reuerence good will neither do goe about either here or any where else to diminish any thing of the power and dignitie due to the Vicar of Christ and the successor of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul by whose patronage I doe piously and plainly perswade my selfe that I am daily assisted but that I haue this purpose onely to search without all guile deceit without loue and hatred what and how great that power is which all Christians ought to acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome that is in the chiefe Bishop and Pope as they call him and without those assertions which wrest mens mindes to one side or other that I onely haue God before mine eies least at the returne of the Lord I be challenged either for the vnprofitable emploiment or the hiding of my talent Therefore I desire them who haue written before mee of a good minde as I suppose that they take it not in scorne or anger if I depart from their opinion For as I may say with S. Augustine wee ought not to esteeme euery mans disputation although they bee Catholike and praise woorthie as if they were Canonicall Scriptures as though it were not lawfull for vs sauing the reuerence which is due vnto them to mislike and refuse some things in their writings if perhaps wee shall finde that they thinke otherwise then the truth beares being by the helpe of God vnderstood by others or by our selues As I my selfe am in the writings of other men so would I haue the vnderstanding Readers to bee in mine that they would either curteouslie admit or with reason reprehend But to the matter There is amongst Catholikes for what others thinke I force not a whit but those too much addicted to the Pope a twofold opinion touching this question one is of the Canonists who affirme that All rights of heauenly and earthly gouernment are granted by God to the Pope and that whatsoeuer power is in this world whether Temporall and Ciuill or Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall is conferred by Christ vpon Peter and his successors to which principle they doe easily draw any thing so often as any disputation ariseth touching the absolute power or as they vse to speake touching the fulnesse of the power of the Pope The other is the opinion of certaine Diuines who do iustly dislike this ground of the Canonists because it is not cleerely prooued either by authoritie of Scripture nor tradition of Apostles nor practise of the auncient Church nor by the doctrine and testimonies of the auncient Fathers Therefore these doe by most sound reasons conuince their opinion I meane of the Canonists but yet in such manner as that by the losse of that the Pope looseeth neuer a whit the more of his temporall interest and power but they see that safely bestowed and doe preserue it safe and sound for him For they hold thus That the Pope as Pope hath not
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
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
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
the Subiects are not bound to obey the Pope commanding the separation of their bodies But of this matter more in his place By these and the like it appeareth as I said that the Popes in the East times of the Church vsurped to themselues this temporall power ouer Princes which none of all their Ancesters did euer acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times And indeed Gregorie the 7. being exasperated partly with the publike offence of Henry the 4. the Emperour and partly with a priuate iniurie did first of all challenge to himselfe that right and power to giue and take away kingdomes affirming that Christ did giue to Peter and his successors all the kingdomes of the world in this verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho But Gregorie raised nothing of that action but bloudy and raging Tragedies and was hindred by force and armes that he could not effect his vnhappy designes Now that the Church in her first times had no such power nay did not so much as suppose that she had any such power it is clearely prooued out of that Epistle of Hosius which wee alleadged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresie and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxall Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries for in that place that worthy man speakes not in the person of a Christian man nor of a simple Bishop but in the name of the whole Ecclesiasticke order and euen of the Pope himselfe and hee saith either true or false If true it is euident that the Church at that time conceiued that they had no temporall Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Christian Princes no not for heresie which is the most grieuous and pestilent crime that is If false wherefore that he might flatter the Emperour very like how then could he thus say Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum non confundebar Or because he knew not the truth of the matter and the doctrine of the Church Surely I thinke no man will ascribe that to such a man who did not onely match the most of his age in learning and eloquence but also by reason of his yeeres exceeded them all in experience who hauing often been present at Councels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers and heard their iudgement of the power and authoritie of the Church could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes and the power of the Church ouer them I adde also that which passeth all the rest that this iudgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius but neuer misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time or of the ages following that we should iustly conceiue any preiudicate opinion of this iudgement CHAP. V. I Haue alreadie sufficiently discoursed of the follie of Bozius and the Canonists who affirme that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is giuen to the Pope by the law of God For I need not spend much paines in resuting the same since it is long agoe hissed out by the common consent of the Diuines Now let vs passe ouer to the other opinion which the Diuines misliking that of the Canonists haue substituted in the place of this reiected fancie and let vs see whether it agree with the truth Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporall power indirectly and after a certaine manner that is in respect of his spirituall monarchie hath I say the chiefe power euen temporall to dispose of the temporall estates of all Christians Which opinion if it bee true whatsoeuer is drawen from the Bishops by the denial of direct power the same is largely restored to him by this oblique and indirect way of ruling But I am afraid it is not true and that it is assaultable with the same engine wherewith that opinion of the Canonists was battered to the ground For the Diuines and aboue the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprooue the Canonists opinion which giues to the pope the dominion of the whole world and to Kings and secular Princes the execution onely and that committed to them by the Pope because the Popes themselues doe freely confesse as is expressed in diuers of their letters that temporall Empires and Kingdomes are giuen to princes of God and whatsoeuer either power or execution Kings and Emperours haue that they haue it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma or perplexed maner of reasoning Therefore I aske quoth he either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe the supreme King and Emperour or he cannot if he can therefore he is greater than Christ if he can not therefore hee hath not truely this Kingly power And why may not wee aswell vse an argument of the same kinde against this other opinion of the Diuines Kingdomes and Empires are giuen by God as many holy Popes doe witnesse for which cause S. Gregorie in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperour beginneth in these words Our most sacred Lord and appointed of God and in another to Constantia Augusta Therefore your piety saith he whom with our Soueraigne Lord Almightie God hath ordained to gouerne the world let her by fauouring of Iustice returne her seruice to him of whom she receiued the right of so great authoritie What should I vse many words The Scripture it selfe witnesseth that Kings and Emperours receiue power from God whose Vice-gerents they are therein as saith Lyranus vpon that of Wisedome 6. Power is giuen to you from the Lord and vertue from the Highest who will inquire into your works Why then should not a man vse a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine The Pope can one way or other that is directly or indirectly take away kingdomes and empires from Kings and Emperours and giue them to others or he can not if he can he is in some manner greater than God because he takes away that which God hath giuen For one that is lesse or equall cannot take away that which is granted by his greater or his equall Nay nor the Deputie or Vicar of him who granted without the expresse commandement of the Lord least any man should lay in our way that the Pope as Christs Vicar doth it Whereas it can be no where found that he hath receiued any warrant touching that matter either expresly or by implication as by those things which follow will easily appeare If hee can not then it is false which they say that he hath supreame power indirectly to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians and to depose Kings and Emperours from their thrones and to suffect others in their places I would they would consider how their owne argument doth wringe them and not this onely but also another of greater force which we reported aboue out of the same booke and
Chapter of Bellarmine the which also in this place we will and that by good right fit to our purpose in this maner If it be true that the Pope hath temporall power indirectly to dispose of the temporalties of all Christians he hath the same either by the law of God or of man If by the law of God That should appeare by the Scriptures or surely by the tradition of the Apostles Out of the Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keies of the kingdome of earth there is no mention as for tradition of Apostles the aduersaries produce none neither Canonists nor Diuines If by mans law let them bring foorth their law that we may be all of the same opinion with them But if they shall say that they neede neither expresse word of God nor tradition of Apostles for the confirmation of this power since it appertameth to the Pope onely indirectly and by a kinde of consequence as a certaine and inseparable accession and appurtenance of that Spirituall power wherewith the supreme Pastor of soules is indued ouer all the sheepe of the Christian flocke We also will require of them some testimonie of this accession and coniunction either out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles Wee doe require I say that they teach vs either out of Scriptures or tradition of Apostles that this is an accession and consequence necessarie and inseparable to that Spirituall power which the Pope hath and that it belongeth to the Popes office in some manner that is indirectly as they speake to dispose of all temporall matters of Christians seeing it is verie vnlikely if that belongs to his office that so great an extent of power and which there is nothing higher amongst men hath beene omitted in so deepe silence in the Church so many ages both by Christ our Sauiour and also by the Apostles and their successors for if each power may be seuered from other the Spirituall from the Temporall and contiarily there will be some place for that opinion which determines that that which is not permitted to be done directly cannot be done indirectly for so haue wise men defined as oft as any thing is forbidden to bee done directly that the same can neither bee done indirectly or by consequence vnlesse that which is forbidden doe follow necessarily to another thing lawfully permitted so as the thing permitted cannot proceed without the thing prohibited and vnlesse as I may speake with the Ciuilians The cause of both be so commixed that it cannot be seuered Whereby it is concluded that hee who is alone cannot alien any thing cannot yeeld to a sute moued vpon the same thing for that by this meane he should obliquely indirectly alien Therefore if the Pope as he is Pope hath no temporall power directly ouer Christians which they do grant it seemeth to be proued by the former sentence of the law that he can haue none not so much as indirectly Therefore that they may perswade men to their opinion they ought to bring testimonie out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles or at least make plaine that this temporall power whereof they speake is so ioined with the Spirituall that by no meanes it can be pulled and diuided from it I meane that the Spirituall cannot consist without it Which because they could not performe they haue followed nothing but vncertaine opinions and such reasons as seeme not sufficiently to conclude that which they assume which we will examine in their order and place CHAP. VI. THe former opinion of the temporall power which they say the Pope hath indirectly is vehemently shaken euen by this that neither practise nor example nor any mention of such a papall power hath been heard of the space of a thousand yeeres in the Church when as in those times many christian Princes did abuse their Kingdomes and Gouernments impiously cruelly peruersly and to the great preiudice and mischeefe of the Church whereof one of the two must needs follow that either the Bishops of those times were wanting to their duties or that the Bishops of the times ensuing did and at this day doe gouerne the Church with greater power and command because these later haue openly challenged to themselues this temporall power and haue endeuoured to pull the same in and at their pleasure ouer Kings and Princes but the former haue not at any time acknowledged that any such right belongeth to them I am not ignorant what answers haue been made by diuers to excuse those first Pastors but I know that they are such that if they be diligently examined they can not be allowed by the opinion of any indifferent iudge There came foorth a booke printed at Rome the yeere of our Lord 1588. published vnder a fained name of Franciscus Romulus with this title An answer to certaine heads of an Apologie which is falsly intituled Catholike for the succession of Henry of Nauar into the Kingdome of France The author of which booke whome Bellarmine knowes and loues very well labours to take away this most important obiection by the change of the state of the Church and by the diuerse reason and condition of times and persons which oftentime brings in diuersity of law For thus he saith And now where as the aduersarie obiecteth in the fourth place touching the custome of our ancestors who endured many hereticall Princes as Constantius and Valens Arius Anastasius an Eutychian Heraclius a Monothelite and others besides it makes nothing to the matter For the Church ought not rashly and inconsideratly to abuse her power Moreouer it falleth out not very seldome that the power of certaine Kings is so great being also ioined with wickednesse and cruelty that the Ecclesiasticall censure neither profiteth any thing to restraine them and doth very much hurt to Catholike people vpon whom these Princes prouoked do rage the more For I pray you what had it auailed the Church in times past if she had assaied to excōmunicate to depose either the Ostrogoth Kings in Italy or the Visegothes in Spain or the Vandales in Afrik although she might haue done it very iustly and the very same ought to be vnderstood of Constantius and Valens and others aboue named and indeed then the times were such as that the Bishops ought rather to haue been ready to suffer Martirdome then to punish Princes But when the Church perceiued that now some place was opened to her power either with the spirituall profit of the Princes themselues or at least without the mischeefe and hurt of the people she was not wanting to her selfe as the examples alleadged before doe prooue For thus the Church iudged that Leo Isaurus was to be depriued of halfe his Empire and Henry the fourth of the whole and Childerike of the Kingdome of France and indeed afterward both Leo wanted part of his Empire and Henry the whole and Childerike his kingdome of France
we are to thinke that there is the same reason of the Church to be established and which is established already that the Uine ought â—â—t to be planted and watered before it be pruned but that then that power was giuen to the Church when that of the Prophet was fulfilled Kings shall be thy Nurâ—es with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee shall lickâ— the dust of 〈…〉 that surely is such a toâ— as I do thinke not worth the answering seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knowes what he saith For â—hat were not the rotten members of the Church wont to be cut off euen from her infancie first beginning doth he not know that that spirituall incision which is proper to the Church begaÌ„ euen with the Church her self What say you to Ananias what to the Corinthian were they not cut off by the church If he know not this he is to be thought an ill Diuine a worse Vine-dresser seeing he euen in the very first planting shreds off whatsoeuer is super fluous and vnprofitable in the vine and suffers not the rotten and faultie branches to sticke out of the ground afterwards when it is a litle growenvp he lops and cuts it lest it should be ouercharged with vnprofitable and vnfruitfull stems But if he meane corporall incision he ought to know that the Church hath no skill of bloud I meane that she doth not execute death vpon any vnlesse peraduenture it falles out by miracle as in the person of Ananias and Saphâ—ra But what doth he thinke that the Church was not perfectly established in the times of Ambrose Hierome and Austine Or that it was not sufficiently planted watred that at that time it might be conueniently shred Surely S. Austine in one place affirmes that very few in his time were found that thought euill of Christ. Why then did the Church tolerate Ualens Ualentinianus Heraclitus and others for from Constantine the Great that Prophecie which he alleadgeth was fulfilled But it was not yet time to cut the Lords vineyard A worthy reason sure and to be ranked amongst that followes fooleries which in another place we set downe by themselues Now let vs goe to the maintainers of the indirect power CHAP. XII THese mens opinion I haue set downe aboue in the first and fift chapters which is That the Pope by reason of his spirituall Monarchie hath temporall power indirectly and that soueraigne to dispose of the temporalties of all christians and that he may change kingdomes and take them from one to giue them to another if it be necessary for the health of soules Against which opinion there are so many things that I hould it to be vtterly improbable if not incredible For first of all what is more contrary to it then that the whole christian antiquity euer iudged that Kings are lesse then God only that they haue God only for their iudge that they are subiect to no lawes of man and can be punished or coerced with no temporall punishments and therefore that which the authors of the law said Princeps 〈…〉 est that the Grecians cheefly vnderstand of penall lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Prince offending is not punished None of these things can stand with the opinion of the aduersaries For if it be true that the Pope may dispose of kingdomes and states of secular Princes and take from them their scepters and all manner of dignity it followeth necessarily that the Pope is superior and euen Iudge ouer Kings in temporall matters and besides that all Kings may be subiect to temporall punishments which is directly opposite as may be to the former opinion of the ancient Fathers The necessity of the consequution is plaine by this for that he who iudgeth an other lawfully must of necessity be superior ouer him whom he iudgeth For an equall hath not authority ouer an equall much lesse an inferior ouer a superior and also because the depriuation of a Kingdome euen as the publication of goods is to be reckned amongst temporall punishments and those very greeuous too What I pray you that the Bishops themselues confesse that Kings haue no superior in temporalities They haue and they haue not cannot be both true Therefore it is false that Kings haue no superiour in temporalities if an other may by law take their temporalities from them and giue them to an other For if this be not an act of superiority as I may speake I know not surely what it is to be superior or if to condemne a King vnheard and to punish him as farre as his regall dignity comes to be not to be the Iudge of a King we must confesse that no motion either of a iudgement or of a Iudge hath beene deliuered and lest vs by our Elders For in that they place the difference in the words Directe indirecte that belongs not to the power of iudgeing and to the effect of the iudgement but onely to the manner and way of acquiring so great a power For the Canonists doe say that the Pope hath receiued directly of Christ the temporal dominion of the whole world But these men I meane the Diuines deeme that he receiued such a dominion directly as if you should say by it selfe simply and without consideration of another thing but onely indirectly that is by consequence in regard of that spirituall power which he hath receiued directly from the Lord. Therefore this difference out of these words ought to be referred to the beginning and meane of acquiring a temporall power but not to the force and effect of the same For whether you say makes nothing for the strength and power of the Popes iudgement ouer Kings vnlesse peraduenture some may say that the Pope if he be an ill man may tyrannize ouer the Parsons and Estates of Kings more freely indirectly then directly But if the opinions of the aduersaries should take place Christian Kings and Princes shall not only be Clients and Vassals to the Pope in temporalities but that which is more base they shall hold their Kingdoms and Principalities as it were at his courtesie And this I doe easily prooue euen out of the very principles and grounds of the aduersaries The Pope may take from any man his kingdome and giue it to another if so be that it be necessary for the health of soules But to iudge and determine if it be necessary belongs to the same Pope of whose iudgement whether it be right or wrong none can iudge therefore where he listeth he may depriue euery man of his kingdome and giue it to another The Proposition in this argument is the very opinion of the aduersaries and the Assumption is without controuersie amongst all Catholikes for none but an Heretike will deny that the charge of soules belonges to the successour of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly the conclusion followes necessarily of the
and we confesse it For if one be more â—orthy then another it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy and is â—â—â—strate and suâ—â—â—â—ted to it for they may â—all out to be comprehended â—â— kinds or orderâ— so â—iuers by nature that neither can depend of other or be hâ—ld by any bond of subiection Therefore we grant that a Prâ—â—ce in the case propâ—â—nded ought to change the â—orm of Câ—uill administâ—at 〈…〉 to â—o it by the church or by the hâ—aâ— thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth which is the Pope but oâ—â—lâ—â—â— Spâ—â—â—tuall punishment the horror whereoâ— to a good man 〈◊〉 greeâ—â—ous then all the pu 〈…〉 by the testiâ—oâ—â—e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporall punishment as is 〈…〉 of Kingdome seeing a 〈…〉 poraltiâ—â— Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a 〈…〉 Hence â—â—dorus whose opinion is registred amongst the Canons Whether the peace and diâ—cipline of the Church be increased by faithfull Princes or 〈…〉 of them who hath deliuered and committed the Church to their power CHAP. XV. Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakned by that which hath been said yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse and more at large to explaine my whole meaning touching this point Therefore we must vnderstand that all Kings and Princes christian as they are the children of the Church are subiect to the Ecclesiastike power and that they ought to obey the same so oft as the commandeth spirituall things which vnlesse they shall doe the Church by the power and Iurisdiction which she hath ouer them may inflict spirituall Censures vpon them and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit although she ought not to doe at alwaies as hath been before declared but with that sâ—ord onely not with the visible and temporall sword alâ—â— because 〈◊〉 sword is committed onely to the Ciuil and Secular power Wherefore so oft as the spirituall power standeth in need of the assistance of the temporall sword she is accustomed to intreat the fauour and friendship of the Ciuill power her friend and companion Contrariwise that Ecclesiastike Princes and Prelates are subiect to ciuill Princes in temporalities and ought to obey them in all things which belong to their ciuill gouernment in no other manner then the Ciuill are bound to obey them commanding spirituall things so as they bee such as repugne neither the Catholike faith nor good manners Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason but because that by the bountie of Kings he hath been made a King himselfe I meane a ciuill Prince acknowledging no man for his superiour in temporalties and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Iurisdiction confesse whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer ad precipua capita Apologiae c. That opinion saith he is generall and most true that all men ought altogether to obey the superiour power But because power is twofold spirituall and temporall Ecclesiastike and Politike of which one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings the Bishops must bee subiect to the Kings in temporall matters and the Kings to the Bishops in spirituall as Gelasius the first in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael And because the Bishop of Rome is not onely a chiefe Prince Ecclesiastike to whom all Christians are subiect by the law of God but is also in his Prouinces a Prince temporall nor acknowledgeth any superiour in temporalties no more than other absolute and soueraigne Princes doe in their kingdomes and iurisdictions hence it commeth to passe that in earth he hath no power ouer him Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection but because he possesseth a temporall principality which is subiect to none Therefore in those matters which belong to the safety of the common wealth and to ciuill society and are not against the diuine ordinance the Cleargie is no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne Prince temporall then other Citizens are as Bellarmine himselfe declareth excellently well adding also a reason secondly for that Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men they are also Citizens and certaine ciuill parts of the common wealth Cleargie men saith he are not any way exempted from the obligation of ciuill lawes which do not repugne the sacred Canons or the clericall dutie And although he saith that he speakes not of coactiue obligation yet is it more true that they may be constrained by a temporall iudge to the obedience of the lawes where the cause doth require that in that case they should not enioy the benefit of their exemption which it is certaine enough that they receiued from the lawes of Emperors and Princes For in vaine doth he challenge the benefit of lawes who offends against them Hence it is I meane out of this society and fellowship of clerkes and laikes in the common weale that in publike assemblies the Cleargie if they be to consult of temporall affaires doe fit in the next place to the Prince Therefore spirituall power by the word of power it is vsuall to signifie the persons indued with power doth both command and obey politike power and the politike her againe And this is that indeed whereof B. Gregorie the Pope admonisheth Maurice the Emperor let not our Lord saith he out of his carthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests but out of his excellent iudgement euen for his sake whose seruants they are let him so rule ouer them as that also he yeeld them due reference That is to say let him rule ouer them so far forth as they are Citizens and parts of the common wealth yeeld reuerence as they are the Priests of God and spirituall fathers to whom the Emperor himselfe as a child of the Church is in subiection And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers is by a singular president declared of Salomon who feared not to pronounce Abiathar the high Priest guilty of death because he had a hand in the treason of Adoniah For the story saith The King also said to Abiathar the Priest Goe thy waies to Auathoth to thy house and surely thou shalt die but to day I will not slay thee because thou hast caried the Arke of the Lord before Dauid my father and hast endured trouble in all those things wherein my father was troubled Therefore Salomon dismissed Abiathar that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Salomon shewes that in a ciuill and temporall businesse he had authority ouer the Priests whereas notwithstanding it is euident that in the old law the Priests were ouer the Kings and vsed to command and also to withstand them in all things
which belonged to the worship of God and the Priestly function But for that Bellarmine would faine haue it that Salomon did this not as a King but as a Prophet and an executioner of diuine iustice I require some proofe of this interpretation seeing it appeares no where by the Scriptures and therefore rests vpon mere coniecture only For in that place there is no mention made neither of any commandement specially giuen by the Lord nor of any extraordinary power delegated vnto him but rather the cleane contrary Salomon himselfe declareth openly enough that he executed this iudgement as King according to the ordinary power of the gouernment which he enâ—oâ—ed in the right of his kingdome by vsing this preface The Lord liueth who hath established me and placea me vpon the throne of Dauid my father And indeed the whole businesse was not spirituall or Ecclesiastike but temporall and politike only wherein Salomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawfull and ordinary iudge and therefore we do not read that by one interest he gaue iudgement vpon Adoniah and by an other vpon Abiathar Againe where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words vtimâ—leatur sermo Domini c. it is very sleight I will not say absurd for what belongs this to the manner of fulfilling who knoweth not that the same speech of the Scripture is as well verified of that which is performed after an vsuall law and an ordinary authority as in this place as of that which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderfull euent or by the impiety and tiranny of men The wicked when they crucified our Sauiour diuided his garments that it might be fulfilled which is spoken by the Prophet or that the Scripture might be fulfilled Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures to shew the truth of the prediction and prophecie so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter must seeme very ridiculous and childish Indeed Salomon in that case was the executer of the diuine iustice I allow it he was a Prophet also it is true and what then And yet we read that he did that by his kingly authority and common or ordinary power and none not the least mention made of any speciall commandement Neither is there any place in Scriptures where we may read that this iurisdiction was by speciall name committed to him Moreouer it is not likely that the author of the story being inspired with the holy ghost would without any touch or warning passe ouer so different causes of so great a businesse and of so great weight if so be the King had passed his iudgement by vertue of one power and authority against Adoniah being a lay person and another against Abiathar a Priest In like sort the same learned man is deceiued when he saith That it is no wonder if in the old testament the soueraigne power was temporall in the new spirituall because in the old testament the promises were only temporall and in the new spirituall and eternall For neither in the old testament was the soueraigne power altogether temporall neither is spirituall in the new But each in his owne kingdome that is in the iurisdiction of his owne power as is most meet did then beare sway and at this time ruleth euen then say I both of them contented with their owne precincts abstained from that which was not their owne that neither the temporall power inuaded the spirituall iurisdiction and Priestly function nor the spirituall pressed vpon the temporall as in their owne right Now that right which Salomon did shew at that time to belong to Princes temporall ouer the Cleargie is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth From hence came those priuiledges which diuers Princes excelling in deuotion and piety granted to Ecclesiastike persons For to what end were priuiledges giuen to them if by a common right they were not subiect to kings seeing that they who are defended and exempted by the common aide and by mere law haue no need of any priuiledge or extraordinary helpe And with these agree euen those things which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists That the exemption of the Cleargie in ciuill causes as well touching their persons as touching their goods was brought in by the law of man and not of God and hee confirmeth it both by the authoritie of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes by Chrysostomes testimonie and also by the testimonie of the ancient Fathers and lastly in that as he saith No word of God can bee brought forth whereby this exemption can bee confirmed And I adde this as a most pregnant argument of this truth that in the most flourishing estate of the Church and vnder those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the vniuersall Church and the Vicar of Christ it was enacted and obserued by the Imperiall lawes that the Cleargie should answere before secular Iudges touching ciuill crimes and be condemned by them if they were found guiltie of the crime laid against them And indeed least we mistake we must vnderstand that not all these priuiledges of persons and businesses which at this day the Cleargie enioyeth were granted by the same Princes nor at the same time For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular priuiledge onely that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions that is that being nominated or elected they should not bee constrained to beare office or to vndertake any wardship or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victuall or Tribute whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens In the eight yeere after by the same Prince his fauour they obtained immunitie and excuse from all Ciuill functions as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperour wherein hee giues this reason of his priuiledge Least the Cleargie by the sacrilegious malice of certaine men might be called away from diuine seruice And surely it is a thing worth the marking against the vnthankfull rasâ—nesse of certaine Clerikes who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesie and gift of secular Princes because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges for thus he By the faction of hereticall persons we finde that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church are so vexed that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops that they should not bee accused of any Crimes
it is not lawfull for them to vse another mans authority and is fitting for the one onely to meddle in matter of armes and for the other with matter of iustice In the same manner two soueraigne Magistrates of the Christian Common-wealth the King and the Pope doe receiue from the common King and Lord of all the great God of Heauen and Earth a diuers power each perfect in his kind and gouerne the people by different iurisdictions and offices And these surely so long as they agree together in concord of mindes doe naturally assist one another to the maintenance and conseruation of each power and authority so as both the Ecclesiastike power doth with the Heauenly and Spiritual sword strike such as be seditious and rebellious subiects to their secular Prince and in requitall the power Temporall and Politike doth with an armed hand pursue Schismatikes and others falling from the faith or otherwise carying themselues stubbornly toward their holy Mother the Church and doth sharply chastice them with temporall punishments and ciuil corrections and Mulctes But when they are rent into contrary factions and oppose themselues one against the other the whole Christian Common-wealth either wholly fales to ground or at least is most greeuously wounded because there is none but God alone who can lawfully deuide that cause and redresse the wrong offred of either side CHAP. XVIII BEing desirous to passe on to other matters I was a little staide by a doubt which did arise touching the sense of the late argument of the second reason which was conceiued by the author in these words Also euery Common-weale because shee ought to be perfect and sufficient in hirselfe may command another Common-wealth not subiect to hir and inforce hir to change her gouernment yea also to depose hir Prince and to ordaine another being shee cannot otherwise defend hirselfe from hir iniuries For to confesse the truth when I first read these words in him I paused awhile that I might throughly vnderstand the meaning of these words and what the moment and waight of this argument might be For he seemed not plainly and expresly to approue it because he did lay open to vs certaine meanes of forceing a Neighbour Common-wealth and deposing the Prince thereof And when I had a long time skanned and examined the same I resolued that either it was a riddle or that his words doe admit this sence and interpretation Euery Common-weale may denounce and wage a iust war against another Common-wealth which beares both hatred and armes against her when as she cannot otherwise deliuer hirselfe from hir iniurie and if shee be the stronger may by force and armes force hir to conditions of peace and if she suppose that by that Caution shee hath not yet prouided sufficiently for hir security because peraduenture shee hath to do with a people that is by nature false and treacherous may reduce the whole Country into her power and iurisdiction and giue her lawes and orders remooue hir Prince take away hir authority and at hir pleasure alter the whole administration of the Common-wealth into another form But if this be the true sense of these words as I suppose it is that argument surely was to small purpose brought of Bellarmine for that is not gathered from hence which he concludes forsooth Much more may the Spirituall Common-wealth command the Temporall Common-wealth being subiect vnto hir and force hir to change hir administration and to depose Princes and ordaine others c. Because in this case there be not two Common-wealthes but onely one Christian resting on two powers whereof neither is subiect to other as we haue aboue sufficiently demonstrated as also for that if we grant that they are two Common-wealthes distinct the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall and the Temporall he must of force confesse that in the one all Bishops and Clerikes only are comprised in the other all secular Princes and Laikes or that this is compounded of onely Ecclesiastikes that of onely Laikes For although the Laikes and Clerikes together doe constitute one Church and one christian Common-weale yet they doe not make together one Ecclesiastike and spiritual Common-wealth as it is distinguished from the temporall nor one temporall and secular Common-wealth but according to the diuision and separation aboue named the Laikes make the temporall and the Ecclesiastikes the spirituall in the case wherein the temporall is distinguished from the spirituall after this manner But now seeing the Ecclesiastike common-wealth containes onely Clerikes whose weapons ought to be none other but Praiers and Teares how can it be that she being weake and vnarmed can compell but by Miracle a temporall Common-weale armed to change the manner of her administration Therefore there is nothing more fond then this comparison and consequution of Bellarmine since in reasoning he proceeds from Common-wealthes well prouided for exercise and furniture of armes to Common-wealthes the one whereof is vtterly disfurnished of armes For as oft as one State either repelleth the iniuries which another would offer or reuengeth them being offered she fighteth with those armes which are allowed her and which by law of armes she may vse that is to say Corporall and Visible by force whereof she ouerturnes the bodies of her enemies inuades their holds battereth townes and ouerthrowes the whole state of the enemie Common-wealth But the spirituall Common-weale which he calles is quite destitute of this kind of armes and because it is composed of Clerikes onely it is lawfull for her to fight with spirituall armes onely which are Prayers and Teares for such are the defences of Priests in no other manner neither ought they neither can they resist For all of them are commanded in the person of Peter to put vp the Materiall sword How then can the spirituall Common-wealth constraine the temporall Common-wealth which contemnes the spirituall thunder-boltes that she should change the manner and forme of her Administration or depose her Prince and ordaine another Now if any peraduenture doe propound that the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth should bee assisted in the execution of so great a matter by the humane forces of secular men for Princes and all other Christians ought to be Nurses and defenders of the Church he will be answered out of hand that in that case the Ecclesiastike Common-wealth doth not constraine the temporall common-weale but is onely the Cause wherefore an other State temporall by whose helpe that spirituall one is defended and protected doth reuenge the wrong done vnto the Church In no other manner than if the whole Common-wealth should reuenge an iniurie or a slaughter receiued in the person of one Citizen Euen as it is recorded that the rest of the Tribes of Israell did wage a bitter and a grieuous warre against the Beniamites for rauishing the wife of one Leuite So the Graecians in times past reuenged Menclaus his iniurie with the ruine of Troy And the Romanes punished with a sharpe warre Teuca Queene of the
the Passion that thou put of thy body that with the cast cloathes of thy flesh sacrifised thou maiest buy a crowne of Martyrdome which thou maiest gather out of the blessings of the Lord who preached that it was the summe of all Crownes if a man suffer persecution for righteousnesse Lastly that you may know of what passion he spake least he should trouble the mindes of his Disciples he brought foorth the example touching himselfe saving Because as yet that which is written ought to be fulfilled in me that he was reputed with the iniust Thus he To which I will at last adioyne that Bellarmine himselfe in the bookes de summo Pontifice prooueth that it is not the meaning of that place of the Gospell that it should be vnderstood of the Spirituall and Temporall sword I answered saith he that no mention is made in that place of the Gospell of the Spirituall and Temporall sword of the Pope but onely that by those words the Lord would admonish his Disciples that in the time of his passion they should be in those straightes and in that feare wherein they are wont to be who are glad to sell their câ—ate to buy them a sword withall Where vpon hee affirmeth that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the viij did mystically onely interpret this place of the two swords Which seeing it is so and that it is certaine both by the interpretation of the Fathers and also by the confession of Bellarmine himselfe that the words of our Sauiour are not truely properly and strictly to be taken of those swords about which all our swords are drawen and we together by the eares surely then that speech of Bernard is very wrongfully alleadged to prooue that the Pope in any case hath Temporal power ouer Christian Princes or that the Temporall sword is vnder the Spirituall sword the which neither S. Bernard saith there neither â—â—uld so say without wresting and peruerting the place Therefore although we grant neuer so much that the place is to be vnderstood mystically of the Spirituall and Temporall sword yet that exposition of Bernards will onely worke thus much that we may vnderstand that Christian Kings and Princes ought to wage warre for the Church by the Counsell of the Church or of the Pope Which no sober man will euer deny And so Christ if in this manner we vnderstand his words mystically two swords being shewed said Satis est not to signifie that one sword should be subiect to the other or that both of them should be in the hand of the Pope and the Priests for that exposition is faulty and is repugnant both to right reason and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers wherein it is taught that Kings and Emperours haue God onely for their superiour in temporalities but to admonish vs that there should be at the last in the Christian Common-wealth a meeting and concourse of both the swords Spirituall and Temporall when Princes should be conuerted to the faith and that by them two the Church should be euery way protected and defended from iniury But because we are fallen into this notable place of S. Bernard I would wish the reader by the way diligently to consider with me that which I know not whether any hath obserued heretofore What is the reason that he writing to Eugenius the Pope of the temporall sword first saith tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu cuaginandus Then a few lines after doth adde that the same sword is to be vsed nutu sacerdotis and addes not forsitan Doth that same forsitan either abound in the former sentence or faile in the latter The truth is that the godly and wise man did it of purpose that he might with some finenesse distinguish the person of the Pope from the pontificall or sacerdotall authority and office and teach that it importeth very much whether the Pope or Eugenius although both Pope and Eugenius were the same doe bid or forbid any thing I meane whether the Pope as a man obnoxious to the perturbations of the mind would haue the sword drawen not for the Church according to the duty of his function but by the instigation of a corrupt affection or as a Priest that is a good and holy man doe command or refuse that the sword should be drawen and war waged seruing not his owne turne but the profit of the Church As if he should say ô Eugenius cheefe Bishop the temporall sword is not absolutely and simply to be drawen at thy commandement but peraduenture euen then when as for the euident commodity of the Church you shall aduise them with wise and sound counsell who haue the sword in their power but not then when as out of the desire you haue either to practise ancient enmity with any or to powre out any new conceiued hatred or to satisfie any ambitious desire to rule you shall purpose to set christian Kings and people by the eares or to wage and bring any was upon them For that is a point of a Priest this of a Man For that is a meditation and action of a Priest this of a man that of a Bishop this of Eugenius or some other that holds the Bishops sea That this was S. Bernards meaning in those words the actions of certaine Bishops who haue beene beyond measure transported with anger and pride haue plainly declared But let vs returne to our purpose CHAP. XX. THe third reason in Bellarmine is It is not lawfull for 〈◊〉 to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an be 〈◊〉 vncendeauour to draw his subiects to heresie or 〈◊〉 But to iudge whether a King doe draw to heresie or 〈…〉 Pope to whom the charge of religion is committeâ— Ergo It belongs to the Pope to iudge that a King is to be 〈◊〉 not to be â—epoâ—ed And he labours to prooue thâ— proposition of this reason by three arguments Therefore I answer to that That he saith that it is not 〈…〉 to tolerate a King that is an heretike or an 〈◊〉 c. that this proposition is as false as false may be Otherwise all antiquity is to be condemned which did beare with great submission and patience Kings hereticall and infidelâ— who went about to destroy the Church of God 〈…〉 propter conâ—cientiam that is not 〈◊〉 that they wanted strength to enforce â—icked 〈…〉 that they iudged that they might not by the law oâ— God But becauâ—â— we haue in our books against the 〈…〉 and also aâ—oue in this booke we haue 〈…〉 hurtfull and mischieuous erâ—â—â— there is no cause whâ— we should dwell any long 〈…〉 the faâ—â—â—ood thereof It only remaineth that 〈…〉 shâ—w the faults of the arguments wherewith 〈…〉 to prooue his false proposition I 〈◊〉 first argument he fâ—tches out of Deuteronâ—mie where the people is forbidden to chuse a King which is not 〈…〉 brethren that is who is not a Iew least he dâ—aw them to idolatry therefore also Christians
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
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
in certaine places Therefore wee grant the whole argument and freely confesse and professe that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may command all Princes and enioine them to doe those things which appertaine to their safetie and theirs and vnlesse they doe it also to enforce by excommunication and other conuenient meanes But the conuenient meanes are all spirituall meanes and not temporall vnlesse they bee practised by a temporall Magistrate The which point Iohn Driedo obseruing in his bookes of Christian libertie after that he had declared that these two authorities and iurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church and that all secular authoritie in spirituall matters was subiect to the Popes authoritie so as the Pope in regard of his pastorall charge hath authoritie ouer a Christian Emperour euen as a spirituall Father ouer a sonne and as a Shepheard ouer his sheepe that he may iudge and correct him if he should fall into heresie or denie publike iustice to the poore and oppressed or should enact Lawes to the preiudice of the Christian faith all which things we also affirme he setteth downe no other paine or punishment against Emperours so offending but excommunication alone because he knew that the Popes authoritie and iurisdiction was content with spirituall punishments and could goe no further vnlesse shee would runne out in the borders of temporall authoritie and inuade a forraine iurisdiction which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his Now this is no conuenient meane which the aduersaries vse of deposing ill Princes from their gouernment but rather of all other meanes inconuenient both for that it hath scarce euer succeeded happily to the Popes themselues or the Church but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth infinite calamities by intestine discords schismes and ciuill warres as also because in respect of the Pope to whom spirituall matters onely are committed such a meane must needes seeme very strange and to proceede from an vsurped authoritie And therefore it is to be iudged neither conuenient nor iust nor possible Hitherto haue I weighed in the ballance of naked and open truth according to the slendernesse of my wit all the reasons and from those reasons the arguments whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to prooue that the Pope hath supreme authority ouer secular Princes indirecte indirectly CHAP. XXXV I Thought in the beginning when I began this Worke that it was sufficient diligently to examine and discusse the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth vse but for that he sends vs to other matters which he saith are extant in Nicolas Sanders saving See more in Nicolas Sanders lib. 2. cap 4. de visibili Monarchia where you shall finde many of those things which I have deliuered I thinke I shall not doe amisse if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behinde lest the curious and obseruant of our writings should complaine that any reason of the contrarie side hath beene omitted and also should imagine that it is of purpose omitted because it is so strong that it cannot bee answered All the world doth know especially they who haue with any care and attention perused Sanders his bookes that he spared no paines and aboue all other men gathered together most arguments to prooue that the Pope was inuested in this temporall authority ouer all Christians whereof wee speake But yet it is very likely that that man was so farre blinded either with a bitter hatred which hee bare against Queene ELIZABETH being banished out of her Kingdome or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many waies bound or else with some other J know not what smoke of humour and passion that he did not see how that for certaine and sound arguments he vsed many shewes which were not onely false and farre fetched but euen dissenting from common sense and the iudgement of naturall reason Therefore will I transcribe into this place very compendiously the rest of his arguments which as I thinke were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine Argument 1 Therefore hee deduceth one from this that Sauls kingdome was taken from him for that hee had not obserued the Commandements of the Lord which were deliuered him by the ministerie of Samuel from whence hee collecteth thus Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heauen the spirituall authoritie cannot bee lesse now in the Church of Christ then it was before in the Synagogue wee must also now confesse that the King who hath despised to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope may bee so depriued of the right of his Kingdome as that another in the meane time may be anointed by the same Pope and that from that day hee is truly King whom the Pope hath rightly anointed or otherwise consecrated and not he who being armed with troupes of seruants doth vsurpe the Kingdome Argument 2 Another also from the same party That Ahias the Silonite when Salomon was yet liuing foretold that Ieroboam should be ruler of twelue Tribes whereof saith he it is conceiued that either a whole Kingdome or some part may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules that they suffer not by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie Argument 3 The third from this That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe that he that escaped the hands of Asael him should Iehu kill and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu should Eliseus kill By which figure saith hee what other thing was signified then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God that what was not executed by one of them might bee executed by the other of which powers the last and most principall was in the Prophets that is in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place which none could auoid although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned although a man escape the sword of the secular power For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword which may bee hindred by certaine meanes but vseth the sword of the spirit which passeth thorow all places and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories deuised by himselfe to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall and that not onely the Pope but euen other Pastors
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
and vncleannesse hee obeied the will of the Bishop and that hee might obtaine of him the benefite of absolution hee performed at the admonition of the Bishop a temporall office which seemed to bee profitable for the common wealth Vpon which occasion the Author of the history saith For this so great vertue both the Emperour and the Bishop were famous For I admire both the liberty of the one the obedience of the other Againe the burning of the zeale of the one and the purity of faith in the other Ambrose then constrained Theodosius iust as our Confessaries at this day doe constraine their Poenitents to whome they often deny absolution of their crime where they seriously promise that they will performe that office or burden which in place of Poenitence they lay on them when as yet they haue no temporall iurisdiction ouer them He forced him likewise euen as any of vs vseth to force his neighbour or fellow Burgesse when we deny that to him which hee desireth to be done or giuen him by vs vnlesse hee first do that which wee desire for our friends sake or our own To be short it is a common thing that a man is constrained or enforced by reason by loue by griefe by anger and by other affections and passions of the mind without any authority of temporall and spiritual iurisdiction These things standing thus it is worth the obseruation in this example that the Ecclesiasticall power doth often with feare of spirituall punishment enforce men to performe temporall duties as in this place Ambrose did the Emperour and of the contrary that the ciuill power doth many times by feare of temporall paines driue others to performe spirituall offices as when a Prince compelleth heretickes or schismaticks to returne to the Church for feare of bodily punishment or losse of goods and yet neither can the one impose temporall punishment nor the other spirituall but by accident as they say The fourth followeth The fourth saith he is of Gregory the first in the Priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus and is to bee seene in the end of the Epistles If saith he any King Prelate Bishop or person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicke authority and of our commaundement of what dignity or honour soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour If Bishop Gregory should liue at this day and vnderstand that these words of his are taken in that sense as though he had authority to depriue Kings of their honour and dignity hee would surely cry out that it is a calumnious and a wrested interpretation and that he neuer so much as dreamed of any such matter and indeed those things which in other places are left written by him doe vtterly discredite this exposition These then are the words not of a commaunder but of a curser whereby he chargeth and adiureth all kind of men that they doe not violate the priuiledge granted by him which if they shall doe that God will be the reuenger to depriue them of honour which kind of admonition and imprecation is at this day wont to bee added to the ends of the Popes Bulles and constitutions in this manner Therefore it may be lawfull for no man to in fringe this page c. or of presumption to contrary the same but of any shall presume to attempt it let him incurre the indidgnation of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul or that which is the same let him know that he shall incurre CHAP. XL. BY that which hath beene said the Reader will easily see that it is true which before I set down that there cannot bee found either in the holy Scriptures or writings of holy Fathers any printe or example of the temporall authority of the Pope and therefore that they do not well nay that they offend very greeuously who labour to strengthen an opinion most false in it selfe by arguments and examples so remote and impertinent By these meanes they deceiue the vnlearned and are derided by the learned I haue already proued very plainely that there is no force in the former examples to proue that which the aduersaries affirme And for the examples following I take lesse thought to answer For although some of them doe fit the purpose of the aduersaris and shew that Popes did sometimes vse temporall authority in the last ages of the Church notwithstanding because they containe nothing but the singular actions of Popes who no man denieth but that they were men and might commit faults and slippes after the manner of men in so much as it is now celebrated by a common Prouerbe which we remembred before out of Sotus Factum Pontificum non facit fidei articulum that is The act of the Popes doth not make an article of faith therefore touching their acts wherin they haue endeauoured to exercise such an authority the question and disputation is behinde touching the lawfulnesse thereof whether they were done lawfully yea or no Neither ought that to moue vs at all the writers of the stories who haue in their writings recorded the acts of the Popes haue added no note or touch of reprehension but rather haue allowed and commended them For I see that there were many reasons for that First because all the writers of that time were either Monkes or at the least Clergy men who tooke most care to increase and amplifie the dignity of the Popes and therefore they were very wary and heedfull not to reprehend or checke any actions of the Popes and to accuse them of iniustice Secondly for that in those times so great was the opinion of the Pope that the multitude receiued and embraced in estimation all his actions as if they had beene done by God himselfe in which respect Iohn Gerson said not without reason That the common people doth imagine the Pope as a God who hath all authority in heauen and in earth My selfe haue seene aboue fifty yeares agone in Scotland when as that Kingdome did as yet stand sound in faith and religion that the name of the Pope of Rome for so they spake Scotishly the Pape of Rome was had in such reuerence with the multitude that whatsoeuer was told them to haue beene said or done by him was esteemed of all men as an oracle and as a thing done by God himselfe Lastly for that a present danger did hang ouer their heades which danger to this day bindeth the hands and mussles the mouthes of many lest if they should write any thing which was harsh and vnpleasing to the Pope or should taxe and find fault with his actions as well the writer as his writing should forth with be stricken with the Popes curses which cannot seeme strange to those who doe know that the anger and arrogancie of Pope Sixtus V. did burne so farre that as I touched before hee had determined to destroy and quite extinguish the trim and goodly disputations of Bellarmine because hee
GVIL BARCLAII J. C. OF THE AVTHORITIE OF THE POPE WHETHER AND HOW FARRE FORTH he hath power and authoritie ouer Temporall Kings and Princes Liber posthumus AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD for VVilliam Aspley 1611. TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD CLEMENT the 8. Pope W. Barclay wisheth health IF Rome from Peter to this day had seene such Bishops as your Holinesse is most High Father and Prelate of Christians there had been no place for this Question at this time Your Moderation and Gentlenesse answerable to your Name either had not opened any gap to this Busines or had barred the same by some graue Prouision that it should not be opened I haue here discussed the Question touching the Temporall authoritie of your See ouer Kings and Princes which hauing been canuassed with so great Troubles and so much Blood hath as oft afflicted the Church as the Princes themselues I haue also dedicated the same to you lest I might seeme either to haue shunned your Iudgement or to haue managed rather the Cause of the Kings then of the Church If I haue not pleased euery mans taste I desire them to consider That no Medicine brings Health without bitternesse It is peraduenture an odious argument to such as be scrupulous or malitious to peruert my sense and meaning which not withstanding most Holy Father I haue vndertaken partly out of the loue of the Truth partly also for that I haue been of opinion that this Authoritic is the fountaine of all those tempests wherewith Heresie tosseth your ship at this day Pope Iulius the 2. being alienated with a sudden vnkindnes did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France but also depriued Iohn King of Nauarre of his kingdome because hee assisted the French And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France but the Nauarrois hearing the Spaniard of one side and being excluded on the other side by the Mountaines of Pyrene from the helpe of France was not able to make his part good against the furie of Rome and the ambition of Spaine Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdome he retired into France where he had a large and ancient Patrimonie In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled and the Heires of Iohn King of Nauarre inflamed with their priuate hatred did very soone passe to that side which bandied against the See of Rome Therefore came Heresie first to be seattered thorow France by the partialitie of those Princes which through the fiaming fire and after through warres hath continued to this day As for Henrie the 8 King of England who doubteth that he departed not so much from the Religion as from the Pope out of his Hatred against the very same Authoritie Clemens the 7. had denounced Henrie depriued of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms and he againe conceiued an anger which peraduenture was not vniust of his part but blinde and intemperate He opened England to Heretikes by the occasion of this schisme who afterwards growing strong vnder Edward the 6 destroyed the ancient Religion Againe Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England hauing held out vnder Iames the 5 at length was attainted in the beginning of Maries raigne and presently after infected when the poison had gathered further strength So what Heresie or Heretiques soeuer are in France and Britannie at this day which is their onlie strong hold was conceiued and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporall Authothoritie as a pestilent egge Behold most holy Father how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command which like Scianus his Horse hath euer cast his Masters to the ground Therefore haue I vndertaken this worke out of my affection to Religion and Truth not to the Princes and of a sincere and humble minde haue presented the same to you the Chiefe Pastour to whom it appertaineth to iudge of leper and leper If there be any thing in these writings which you shall thinke good and profitable I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweete remembrance of so great a Witnesse But if allowing my affection yet you shall not allow my Iudgement it shall be to posteritie an argument of your Moderation that vnder you the simple libertie of Disputation hath not been preiudiciall to any Let this be an argument of your Moderation but neuer of my Obstinacie For whatsoeuer is in this businesse I leaue it to your Censure that in this booke I may seeme not so much to haue deliuered what I thinke as to haue enquired of your Holinesse what I ought to thinke Fare you well The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholike disposition to the See of Rome and his sinceritie in the handling of this question The opinion of the Diuines and Canonists touching the Popes authoritie in temporall matters and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiasticall and Temporall powers and a taxation of Bozius his sophistrie touching the same Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporall iurisdiction but rather inioyned Obedience to be giuen euen to Heathen Princes and a comparison betweene the ambition and vsurpation of the later Popes and humilitie of the ancient Chap. 4. That the later Popes serued themselues of two aduantages to draw to themselues this vast authoritie Temporall ouer Princes viz. partly through the great reuerence which was borne to the See of Rome partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication Chap. 5. That it cannot be proued by any authoritie either Diuine or Humane that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporall authoritie ouer any Christian Princes Chap. 6. That no instance can be giuen of any Popes of higher times that any such authoritie was vsurped and practised by them and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times in regard of the modestie and pietie of the former Chap. 7. An answere made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people coerce and chastise the olde Emperors and Kings and therefore forbare them more then now she neede to doe Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage to execute any lawfull power vpon euill Princes but she forbare to doe it in regard she knew not any such power ouer them Chap. 9. That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine that Henrie the 4. Emperour and other Christian Princes vpon whom the Popes haue practised their pretended temporall authoritie might be dealt withall more securely then the former Princes Chap. 10. The censure of the worthie Bishop Frisingens vpon the course which Gregorie the 7. tooke against Henrie the 4. Emperour and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church and vnfortunate to the Pope himselfe Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and
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
temporall iurisdiction of the heathen and that both Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and â— other notable Diuines doe ingenuously confesse For Christ came not to dissolue the law but to fulfill it Nor to destroy the lawes of nature and nations or to exclude any person out of the temporall gouernment of his estate Therefore as before his comming Kings ruled their subiects by a ciuill power so also after that he was come and gone againe from vs into heauen they retained still the selfe same power confirmed also neither then any whit diminished by the doctrine of the Apostles If therefore Peter and the other Apostles before they followed Christ were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of heathen Princes which can not be denied and the Lord hath no where expresly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations it doth follow necessarily that euen after the Apostleship they continued vnder the same yoke seeing it could no way hinder the preaching and propagation of the Gospell For although they had been freed by our Sauiour his warrant what I pray you had this exemption auailed them to the sowing of the Gospell or what could those few and poore men haue done more being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal iurisdiction then if they were left in their first estate of obedience seeing that that priuiledge of liberty if they had obtained any such thing had been hindred and frustrated by the seruile and vniust courses of vnbeleeuing Princes and people But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practise that they themselues were subiect to Princes like other citizens for that can not be laied in their dish whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the Pharisies that they did one thing and taught an other Now they taught christians that the subiection and obedience whereof we speake is to be giuen to Kings and Princes for which cause Paul himselfe appealed to Caesar and willed all christians to be subiect to the temporall power of the heathen not only because of wrath but also for conscience sake Now for that some say that in that place S. Paul doth not speake of the temporall power of secular Princes but of power in generall that euery one should be subiect to his superior the ciuill person to the ciuill the ecclesiasticall to the ecclesiasticall it is a mere cauill and an answer vnworthy of learned men and Diuines Seing in that time there was commonly no other iurisdiction acknowledged amongst men then the ciuill and temporall and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God so penned his Epistles as that he did not onely instruct them that were conuerted to the Faith and admonish them of their dutie least they should thinke that they were so redeemed by Christ his bloud as that they were not bound any longer to yeeld obedience to any Ciuill power which conceit was now wrongfully setled in the mindes of certaine persons relying vpon the honor and priuiledge of the name of a Christian but also that hee might giue the Heathen and Infidels to vnderstand that Christian religion doth take no mans interest from him neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporall authoritie and power of Kings and Emperours Therefore it is cleare that in that place the Apostle ought to bee vnderstood of the Temporall power onely because at that time as hath beene said there was no other authoritie acknowledged and in that sense haue the ancient Fathers euer interpreted the Apostle in this place wherupon S. Austine in the exposition of that place confesseth that himselfe and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subiect to the Temporall power whose wordes because they bring great light to this disputation I will set downe entier as they lye Now for that he saith Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers for there is no power but of God he doth admonish very rightly lest any because he is called by his Lord into libertie being made a Christian should be lifted vp into pride and not thinke that in the course of this life that he is to keepe his ranke neither suppose that hee is not to submit himselfe to the higher powers to whom the gouernment is committed for the time in Temporall affaires for seeing we consist of minde and bodie as long as we are in this temporall life and vse temporall things for the helping of this life it behooueth for that part which belongs to this life to be subiect to powers that is to men who in place and honour doe manage worldly matters But of that part whereby we beleeue in God and are called into his kingdome wee ought not to be subiect to any man that desires to ouerthrow the same in vs which God hath vouchsafed to giue vs to eternall life Therefore if any man thinke because he is a Christian that he ought not to pay custome or tribute or that hee need not to yeeld honour due to those powers who haue the charge of these things he is in a great error Againe if any man thinke that he is to be subiect so far as that he supposeth that hee who excels in authoritie for temporall Gouernment hath power ouer his Faith he falls into a greater error But a meane must bee obserued which the Lord himselfe prescribeth that we giue to Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God which are Gods Here Austine comprehends many things in few words which support diuers of our assertions which are here and there set downe in this Booke For both first he teacheth that which we haue said that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subiection of Temporall power whereof two things necessarily follow whereof the one is that the Apostles and all other Christians were subiect to the authoritie of Heathen Princes and Magistrates and therefore that neither S. Peter nor any other Apostle was endued with any Temporal power ouer Christians for that it was wholy in the hands of the Heathen as we haue shewed in this Chapter The other that it was not lawful for those first Christians to fall from the obedience of Heathen Princes and to appoint other Princes and Kings ouer themselues although they had strength to effect it as Bellarmine vntruly thinketh because they were not deliuered from the yoke of Temporall power to which they were subiect before they receiued the Faith of Christ which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse Thirdly seeing he speaketh generally of that subiection and vseth such a speech wherein he includeth himselfe and excepts none he doth plainly enough declare that Clergie-men as well as Lay-men are in this life subiect to Temporall power Lastly he deliuereth vs a notable doctrine of a twofold dutie of Subiects both toward God and toward the King or the Temporall power in what manner both of them ought to serue and yeeld that which
is right and due which learning we haue followed in this Booke and in the Bookes De Regno Therefore let vs lay this downe as a maine ground that the place of S. Paul which we spake of before is ment by him onely of the Temporall iurisdiction And yet wee confesse that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly bee applied to Spirituall iurisdiction also by reason of the generall similitude and as they say of the identitie of reason which holdes so iustly between them If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporall iurisdiction ouer priuate men that were regenerate and made the children of the Church how can it be that the successors of the Apostles should obtaine that iurisdiction ouer Princes who come to the Church Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part that they should haue more interest ouer their spirituall Children by vertue of the power Ecclesiasticall then the Apostles had whom they succeed But on the Princes part what can be spoken with more indignitie and iniustice then that they professing the faith of Christ should bee pressed with a harder yoke then any priuate man among the Multitude But priuate men when they entred into the spirituall power of the Church lost no inheritance nor any temporall interest excepting those things which they offered of their owne accord and conferred to the common vse as appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles where Ananias his lye cost him his life being taxed by S. Peter in these wordes whilest it remained did it not appertaine to thee and after it was sould was it not in thine owne power Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gaue their name to Christ retained entirely and vntouched all their temporall interest I meane their Ciuill gouernment and authoritie Neither doth it a whit helpe the Aduersaries cause to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporall power ouer the Princes of their age because they were not as yet made Christians according to that for what haue I to doe to iudge those which are without But that the Pope now hath that power because they are made Christians and sonnes of the Church because he is the supreme Prince and head in the earth and the Father of all Christians and that the right order of Nature and Reason doth require that the Sonne should bee subiect to the Father not the Father to the Sonne This reason is so trifling and meerely nothing that it is a wonder that any place hath been giuen to it by learned men for that spirituall subiection whereby Princes are made sonnes of the Pope is wholy distinguished and seperated from Temporall subiection so as one followeth not the other But as a President or Consul in the time while he is in office may giue himselfe in adoption to another and so passe into the family of an adoptiue father and into a fatherly power whereas notwithstanding by that lawfull act he transferreth not vpon the Adopter either his Consular authoritie nor any thing else appertaining to him by the right of that office so Kings and Princes and generally all Men when they enter into the bosome of the Church and yeeld themselues to be adopted by the chiefe Bishop as their Father doe still reserue to themselues whatsoeuer temporall Iurisdiction or Patrimonie they haue any where free entier and vntouched by the same right which they had before and so the Pope acquires no more temporall power by that spirituall Adoption then he had before which shall be prooued at large hereafter To this I may adde that when the Christian Common-weale did exceedingly flourish both with multitude of Beleeuers and sanctimonie of Bishops and with learning and examples of great Clerkes and in the meane time was vexed and tossed by euill Princes euen such as by Baptisme were made sonnes of the Church there was not any I will not say expresse and manifest declaration but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergie of this Principalitie and temporall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer secular Princes which notwithstanding if it had beene bestowed by the Lord vpon Peters person or in any sort had belonged to his successors although in truth or in deed as they speake they had not exercised it it had neuer beene passed ouer in so deepe silence and so long of so many and so worthy men for holinesse and wisedome and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world Who will beleeue that all the Bishops of those times burning with zeale and affection to gouerne the Church would so neglect this part of this Pastorall dutie if so be they had thought it to be a part wherein certaine of their successors haue placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith that vpon so many and so great occasions they would neuer vse it against hereticall Emperours And yet there was neuer any amongst them who euer so much as signified by writing or by word that by the law of God he was superiour to the Emperour in temporall matters Nay rather euery one of them as he excelled most in learning and holinesse so he with much submission obserued the Emperor and sticked not to professe himselfe to bee his vassall and seruant S. Gregorie the Great may stand for many instances who in a certaine Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor And I the vnworthy seruant of your Pietie saith he and a little after For therefore is power giuen from heauen to the Pietie of my Lords ouer all men he said Lords that he might comprehend both the Emperour and Augusta by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowrie Marke how this holy Bishop witnesseth that power is giuen from heauen to the Emperour ouer the Pope aboue all men saith hee therefore aboue the Pope if the Pope be a man Now it matters not much for the minde and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope or as a priuate person seeing it is to be beleeued that in both cases hee both thought and writ it for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carie themselues toward the Emperour for I feare not lest any learned man alleadge that Gregorie in that Epistle did so in his humilitie exalt the Emperour and submit himselfe to him by a subiection which was not due to him Because if any sillie fellow doe thus obiect I will giue him this answere onely that he offers so holie a Bishop great iniurie to say that for humilitie sake the lyeth and that he lyeth to the great preiudice of the Church and dignitie of the Pope so as now it is no officious but a very pernicious lye Let him heare S. Austine When thou lyest for humilities sake if thou diddest not sinne before thou didst lye by lying thou hast committed that which thou diddest shun Now that Gregorie spake not faignedly and Court-like but from his
destroied Iulianus Whom if you consider their valour and resolution the vse and experience of armes if opportunitie the easie accesse of souldiers to their Commanders in those times if disposition the feruent heat of their mindes burning with desire of Martyrdome and vndertaking any thing for the defence of the faith would haue made them much more ready and eager to deliuer the Church by some notorious action from the treacherie and tyrannie of such a villanous person much more I say then any precipitate rashnesse could set on a brainsicke and furious monke What may we thinke that the Christians of that time did heare the famous trumpets of the Gospel Athanasius Basilius both the Gregories Cyrillus Epihanius Hilarius Hosius and many other Bishops excelling in vertue and learning who by reason of their learning could not be ignorant what interest the Church had ouer Princes and if they had knowen and vnderstood the same by reason of their great sanctitie of life and constancie in aduersitie would not haue held their peace and dissembled the same in so importunate a businesse to the Christian common-weale What may wee thinke that those diuine Prelates taught the people that there was no remedie against that Apostata but in patience and teares for so saith Nazianzenus These things saith he did Iulianus intend he speaketh of those things which the Apostata meditated against the Church as his minions and witnesnesses of his counsels did publish notwithstanding he was restrained by the mercy of God and the teares of the Christians who were in great abundance and by many powred out when as they had this onely remedie against the Persecutors I beseech you Reader that you would obserue consider Nazianzenus well in this place He affirmeth that the Christians that is the Church had no remedie besides teares against the persecution of Iulianus when as notwithstanding it is certaine that they had at their seruice the whole armie of Iulianus Therefore surely this Pope who for his singular excellencie was called the Diuine did not thinke that the Church hath any power ouer a most vngodly Emperour to raise the Christian army against him otherwise it were false that Christians or the Church had no other remedie but teares against a persecutor for they had an armie which being commanded by the Church would easily for the cause of God haue fallen away from Iulianus Now that which we said of Constantius and Iulianus that without great difficultie they might haue beene brought into order by the Church and depriued of Scepters and life without any harme to the people the same is much more apparent in Valens and Valentinianus the yoonger For the chiefe Commanders and Captaines of Valens his armie were good Catholikes by whom hee managed all his warres being himselfe an idle and slothfull Prince and those were Terentius Traianus Arintheus Uictor and others who constantly professed the Catholike faith and boldly vpbraided the Emperour to his face with his heresie and impietie against God but in so religious a libertie they held their hands neither did their heate and anger proceed beyond the bounds of admonition because they knew it was their dutie onely to tell the Prince his faultes but not to punish the same Therefore in all matters which belonged to temporall gouernment they yeelded obedience to this heretike whom they might easily haue remoued and to the great good of the afflicted Church haue reduced backe againe the whole Monarchie to Ualentinianus a Catholike Prince from whom it came Could not these Commanders of his forces conclude a league amongst themselues against their Prince being an heretike if it had beene lawfull for them so to doe Was it not more profitable for the Church that an heretike Emperour should not gouerne Catholikes Or did the Church all that time want learned and watchfull Pastors and by that meanes either neglected or did not vnderstand her temporall interest for what which onely remaines to bee said no age did euer beare Christians more obedience and dutifull to their Prelates then that did that if so bee the Church had wanted not the power to sway Princes in temporall matters but the execution onely of that power the people and armie would not haue beene long before they had deliuered her from the tyranny of Constatius Iulianus and Valens To which the worthy testimonie of S. Augustine giues faith registred among the Canōs Iulianus saith he was an Infidel Emperour Was he not an Apostata vniust an Idolater Christian souldiers seruedan Infidell Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none but him that was in heauen When he would haue them to worship Idols to sacrifice they preferred God before him But when he said draw foorth the Companies get you against that countrey presently they obeied For they distinguished their eternall from the temporall Lord And yet for their eternall Lord his sake they were subiect euen to a temporall Lord. Who doth not see in this place that it was the easiest matter in the world for the Church euery maner of way to chastise Iulianus if the had had any temporall power ouer him For then the cause of Christ had come in question in which case the souldiers would preferre Christ before the Emperour that is the eternall Lord before the temporall Lord for the Churches cause is the cause of Christ. Therefore either the Bishops of Rome or the Popes and euen the whole Church did then beleeue for certaine that they had no temporall iurisdiction in any sort ouer secular Princes or surely they were wanting to their office nor did they so carefully prouide for the flock committed to their charge as now after many ages our last Popes haue done who maintaine very earnestly that it belongeth to a part of their Pastorall office to chastise all Princes and Monarches not onely for heresie or schisme but also for other causes and that with temporall punishment and euen to spoile them of their Empires and Kingdomes if it shall please them Whereas otherwise neither they are to be compared with those first Bishops for holinesse of life and learning and the Christian people in these times is not so obedient as in those first times they were Wherefore if we loue the truth we must confesse that no man can either accuse or excuse the Bishops of both times in this point without preuarication or calumniation the praise of each will turne to the dispraise of the other But let vs goe forward CHAP. VIII VAlentinian the yonger of all who to this day gouerned not onely an Empire but Kingdome or any Principalitie might most easily haue beene coerced and bridled by the Church for he might haue beene not onely thrust out of his Empire at the commandement of the chiefe Bishop that is the Bishop of Rome but euen at the becke and pleasure of a poore Bishop of Millane Ambrose be forsaken of his owne souldiers and guard and be reduced to the state of
a priuate man Before day saith Ambrose as soone as I set my foote out of dores the Palace was beset round about with souldiers and it is reported that word was sent the Emperour by the souldiers that if he would come forth he should haue leaue but yet that they would be ready to attend him if they saw that he did agree with the Catholikes otherwise that they would passe ouer to the companie that Ambrose gathered Not one of the Arrians durst come forth because neither any of them were Citizens a few of them of the Princes house and many of them Gothes who as before they had a Carte for their house so now a Carte is their Church And after in the same Epistle speaking of himselfe I am called a Tyrant quoth he yea and more then a Tyrant for when his friends intreated the Emperour that hee would come out to the Church and told him withall that they did it at the request of his souldiers he answered If Ambrose command you I will deliuer my selfe to be bound What say the Aduersaries to this is not this one place enough to stop all mens mouthes I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italie with a great armie gathered out of the parts of Britaine and France to prouide as hee pretended that Catholike religion should receiue no further harme and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himselfe which notwithstanding was not his onely end but that which in our age hath beene practised by diuers with this colour of Pietie he couered his burning desire of raigning for he was determined hauing now killed Gratianus at Lyons to inuade Ualentinianus his Empire Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his comming fled out of Italie into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperour of the East A matter worth the noting An Heretike being chased by a Catholike flies for succour to a Catholike of whom he is both rebuked for his heresie and for the reuerence of his Maiestie courteously receiued and restored to his kingdome And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawfull Prince Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire nor Restorer of the Church but a Rebell and a Tyrant Seeing these things stand thus I would now wish the Aduersaries that they would forbeare to abuse vs with their deuise and inuention or at least to tell vs whence they haue it Haue they read any where in any good Author that the Christians did then so much distrust their strength and power as that they durst not so much as attempt that which if they had resolutely vndertaken they had easily effected or that they made a proffer at the least but when they had tryed the fortune of the warre and all other humane meanes at last yeelded and lay downe vnder these wicked Princes Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospell that they did not vnderstand what power the Bishop or People had ouer a peruerse and hereticall Prince What did the heate of religion and the zeale of the house of God faile them Let the Aduersaries vnfould the memorie of all Records and turne ouer and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiasticall and prophane beleeue me they shall neuer finde that the Church in those times wherein it was much more powerfull than now it is did euer endeuour any thing to the mischiefe of Princes although they were wicked or euer went about to disanull their gouernment as hath beene plainly and plentifully prooued by vs in our bookes De Regno But cleane contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers of the power of secular Princes it is most certaine that all in that age did thinke that no temporall power did in any manner nor for any cause appertaine either to the Bishop of Rome or cheefe Bishop or to the whole Church but that for temporall punishments they were to be left to the iudgement of God alone And this as it seemeth was the cause why those fathers did so seldome and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes because indeed in those times there was no controuersie about it but one iudgement of all men which euen from the preaching of the Apostles they receiued in a manner by hand that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his iudge although in spirituall matters he be subiect to the iudgement of the Church For the first witnesse in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperours They thinke saith he that it is God alone in whose only power they are from whom they are second after whom they are first before all Gods and aboue all men and in another place we honor the Emperor so as is both lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second from God and haue obtained what so euer he is from God lesse then God only this he desires himselfe so is he greater then all men while he is lesse then the true God alone Thus much he professeth not in his particular but in the generall person of all christians as the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the whole Church Neither let any thinke to elude this argument because the Emperors at that time were without the Church and therefore not subiect to the Church For the law of Christ depriues no man of his right which the aduersaries themselues confesse and therefore as we shewed before Kings and Emperors by comming to the Church loose nothing of their temporall interest In the second place shall S. Ambrose come foorth who writing of Dauid that heaped murder vpon adultery He was a King saith he he was bound by no lawes because Kings are free from the bands of offences For they are not called to punishment by any lawes being exempte by the power of their gouernment Thirdly B. Gregorie of Towers who speakes to Childerike King of France vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously in these words If any of vâ—â—â— King would transgresse the limits of iustice he may be punished by you but if you shall exceed who shall punish you for we speake to you but if you will you heare and if you will not who shall condemne you but he who hath pronounced that he is iustice it selfe Fourthly S. Gregorie the Great who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers who being Pope himselfe confessed that he was the seruant and subiect of the Emperor and with great ciuility and humility acknowledged that all power was giuen the Emperor from heauen ouer all men as we shewed a little before Fiftly the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen Only Kings saith he as being set ouer the lawes are reserued to the examination of God they are not restrained by the lawes of man From
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
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
before seculr Iudges But other persons of the Ecclesiasticall order inferior to Bishops that is Clerks and Monkes continued vnto Iustinianus his time vnder the iurisdiction of ciuill Magistrates and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors about 60 yeeres before Iustinianus his Empire ordained by way of fauour That Priests and Clerkes of the orthodoxall Faith of what degree soeuer or Monkes in ciuill causes should not be drawen by the sentence of any Iudge greater or lesse out of the Prouince or place or Countrie which they inhabite but that they may answere the Actions of all men that haue cause of suite against them before their ordinarie Iudges that is the Gouernours of the Prouinces Behold how these being godly and catholike Princes affirme that the ordinarie Iudges of the Clerkes and Monkes are the Presidents of the Prouinces whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong or that they did not speake truly holily and orthodoxally Wherby it is plaine that they conceiued too peruersly of Iustinianus who affirmed that he vsurped any Iurisdiction ouer the Laikes wheras they are to giue him very great thanks that he was the first of the Emperours who exempted the Cleargie being before that time altogether subiect to ciuill Magistrates from secular iudgement in ciuill Causes Which things being thus it is plaine enough that secular Kings and Princes are indued with soueraigne power temporall and that the Cleargie is subiect vnto them in Ciuill affaires Otherwise truly neither could Kings haue granted those priuiledges nor holy and wise men would haue prouided so ill for themselues and the whole Church that being of them selues absolute and free and loose from the bands of temporall power would suffer themselues to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Priuiledges for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and iurisdiction by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of libertie for that cannot be loosed and exempted which was not bound or concluded before Besides the Princes thorough out the world were at that time of so great pietie and deuotion that if they had either found out by themselues or vnderstood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests that by the law of God the Clerikes were free from secular Iurisdiction they would forthwith haue prouided and enacted lawes and Edicts for the same nor haue challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods For if out of an only zeale of deuotion they gaue away so frankely and so profusely euen those things which they conceiued to be their owne how much more would they haue abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due vnto them Therefore the exemptions and priuiledges which christian Princes haue granted to Ecclesiastike persons for honor and reuerence vnto them do sufficiently declare yea conuince that those Princes are greater then all Priests in temporall power nor that the chiefe Bishop and Prince of Priests and euen the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason and reputed as a priuiledged person but that he is a temporall Prince also and sustaines a two fold person the one of Peters succession in the gouernment of the Church the other of asecular Prince in a temporall iurisdiction which he hath receiued by the liberality of other Princes CHAP. XVI BY the same reason may the difference be ouerthrowen manifestly which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes as far as concernes temporall Domination ouer Ecclesiastike persons which place I cannot now passe by in silence without blam For he saith that the Bishop was subiect Ciuiliter de facto to Heathen Princes Because Christian law depriues no man of his right and inheritance Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and Kings so also they were after But when Princes became Christians and of their accord receiued the lawes of the Gospell presently they subiected themselues to the President of the Ecclesiastike Hierarchy as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head and therefore afterwards ought to be iudged by him and not to iudge him It is an exceeding great fault in disputing to take those things which are enunciated of any one subiect for a certaine cause or are remoued from one subiect for a certaine cause and to attribute or detract them to or from another thing diuers and vnlike and to which the same cause doth not agree or indistinctly and confusedly to shuffle those things together in the conclusion which ought to be seuered and parted by some distinction Which fault who cannot plainely deprehend in this former reasoning of Bellarmine in which that is indefinitly and generally concluded of both the kindes of power and iudgement which ought truly and rightly to haue beene enunciated of one of them alone For that Princes conuerted to Christ submit themselues as sheepe to the Pastor and members to the head that cannot without wilfull cauill be vnderstood but of Spirituall subiection since they were not made his children or sheepe in other respect then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in Iesu Christ and gouerned by the faith of the Church Therefore in all matters which belong to spirituall iurisdiction it is true that they ought to be iudged by him and not he by them But this submission what is it to Ciuill iudgement and temporall iurisdiction Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diuerse and differe it kinds And that which might truely be affirmed of one of them alone to pronounce generally and indefinitly of them both If he had said and therefore ought to be iudged of 〈◊〉 spirituall matters but not to iudge him afterwards surely he had concluded his argument very well But that same simple and absolutely ab illo eos iudicari posse is a 〈◊〉 collection For there is a twofould kinde of iudgement whereof by the one onely Princes may be iudged by the Pope but by the other the Pope himselfe might be iudged by them but that he had obtained a temporall gouernment which is subiect to none other I pray you tell me when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church did the Romane Empire which before his Baptisme was his did it by and by passe into the hands and power of Siluester the Pope and the Emperour who was a man that affected glory so much did he acknowledge the temporall power of that Pope ouer him Did either Clodouaeus transfer the kingdome of France or Donaldus of Scotland or others their kingdomes into the temporall power and iurisdiction of the Pope as soone as they had embraced the faith That same caueat of Paulus the Ciuilian is good Aboue all things we must take heed least a contract made in another matter or with another person hurt in another matter or another person Therefore let Bellarmine search as much as he
〈◊〉 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
subiects to his sect if a maried person beleeuing bee not free from the yoke of the other Mate vnbeleeuing although he will not continue with the beleeuing yoke-fellow without inturie to the faith and contumelie to the Creator As Innocentius III. openly teacheth in cap. Quanto § sivero De Diuort in cap. ex parte De conuers coniugat adeo vt Panorm in illum § Si verò doth say out of the reason there laid That the Church cannot dissolue such a Mariage and free the beleeuing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the vnbeleeuing when as notwithstanding a beleeuing yoke-mate may much more easily be peruerted by a yoke-mate vnbeleeuing then the whole people by a King But the bond of the subiection whereby the people is tied to the King since it proceeds both from naturall and diuine Law seemeth much more hard to be dissolued then that of maried Persons between themselues that from thence a man may easily prooue that the Church can doe no more in one then in the other But if he vnderstand his argument of the later maried persons the answer is easie out of the same Decretall Epistle of Innocent to wit That betweene such couples the Mariage is not good as much as appertaines to the indissoluble bonds of Matrimony And therefore such kind of maried parsons haue full liberty to dissolue the matrimony that they may depart either with consent and good likeing or with mislike and displeasure and the one of them euen against the liking of the other may by refusall and diuorse at his pleasure dissolue that knot of mariage for the woman may as wel send letters of diuorse to the man as the man to the wife For saith he although the Matrimony among Infidels be true because they goe together according to the commandement of the lawes yet it is not firme But amongst the beleeuers it is both true and firme because the Sacrament of faith being once admitted is neuer lost but makes firme the Sacrament of mariage that it continues in the maried persons while that continueth It is no wonder then if the maried persons brought to the faith be free from the fellowship and power of his fellow remayning in Infidelity when as although both had continued in Infidelity it had beene euen as free for each of them to depart from the other by diuorse to dissolue mariage because in the beginning there passed no forme and rate bond of Obligation betweene them And therefore the Apostle doth not command but aduise that the beleeuing wife should not depart from the vnbeleeuing husband if he be willing to stay with hir as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coniâ—giis and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs Which matters since they stand thus surely it followeth that the aduersaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from maried persons to shew that people may be freed from the Regall yoake whether they regard the mariages of the Beleeuers or of the vnbeleeuers Because they are coupled with a most straight and indissoluble knot of society whose band cannot be broken no not by the Church it selfe neither for Infidelity nor Heresie of the one part So as from hence he doth furnish vs with an argument tending rather to maintaine the strength and perpetuity of Regall authority then to dissolue and destroy the same And these are tyed by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church but the husband conuerted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandall may at his pleasure take to him another And againe the woman brought to the faith if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom shee will Seeing therefore there is no firme mariage betweene these and the politike subiection and Kingly domination and rule is ratified and approued amongst all Nations and in euery law as well by diuine as humane power what can be more vnreasonable or fond then to compare and sute them together and to deduce any argument from the society and yoake of vnbeleeuing maried persons which may be shaken of at pleasure to breake the yoake of Regall power and authority and to make the same iudgement of them both as if they were as like as might be CHAP. XXIV I Tould you in the xxiij Chapter that there were fiue reasons in Bellarmine whereby he would proue that the Pope hath temporall power ouer all secular Kings and Princes Christian of which reasons we haue run thorow three and obserued how weake they are and of what diseases they labour it remaineth now that we make our suruay of the other two which are not a whit better conditioned The first whereof is by him laid downe in these words When Kings and Princes come to the Church to be made Christians they are receiued with a Couenant either expresse or secret that they should subiect their Scepters to Christs and promise that they will obserue and defend the faith of Christ yea vnder the penalty of losing their kingdome Ergo. When they prooue Heretikes or hurt Religion they may be iudged by the Church and withall be deposed from their gouernment neither shall any iniury be done them if they be deposed I answer this reason by denying the consequent For although it be true that Princes comming to the Church do submit themselues and their scepters to Christ and euen of their owne accord doe make those promises either secretly or expresly which Bellarmine reporteth yet it is not true neither doth it follow thereof that they may be iudged and deposed by the Church or Pope if they breake their promise or neglect to keepe their Couenant and Oath Because that soueraigne iurisdiction and temporall power of Christ ouer all Kings and the whole world which he hath as the sonne of God doth not appertaine to the Church or Pope but that power onely which Christ assumed to himselfe when he was conuersant amongst men after the manner of men according to which the Pope is Christs Vicar Whereupon Bellarmine himselfe writeth excellently well We say quoth hee that the Pope hath that office which Christ had when after the maner of men he liued amongst men in the world For we may not giue the Pope those offices which Christ hath as God or as animmortall and glorious man but onely those which he had as a mortall man But Christ vsurped no temporall dominion and power when he liued as a man amongst men in earth and therefore neither the Church as the Church nor the Pope as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ can haue any temporall power as the same learned man declareth and prooueth at large in that Chapter Wherefore although Kings and Princes when they come to the Church do subiect their Kingdomes to the Lord Christ and haue Christ their iudge from whom they haue also their Kingdome but because the iudgement is of a temporall affaire when the businesse is touching
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
manner of men which might be a scandall to the Laitie as are the faults which are committed of humaine frailety that the same might with more secresie and closenes be amended before their proper Ordinaries nor should not come to the eares of the rude and barbarous multitude which oft times measureth the doctrine by the manners and is accustomed either to disdaine or to scorne and laugh at these maner of slippes in the Clergy And moreouer lest the Cleriques who ought to bee carefull and diligent to maintaine peace and concord and both in word and deede to giue example of charity and patience should seeme by their often haunting and frequenting of secular Courts to shew the way to all manner of strifes and contention Then by these decrees of Councelles there is nothing detracted from the authoritie of the Laickes but that they may heare the causes of the Clergie men For the Fathers did not neither indeed could they forbid that secular Iudges should not iudge and determine of Clergie mens causes being brought before them for that had beene to take from Princes and Magistrates that right and authoritie which the law of Christ doth not permit them to doe but indeed they did forbidde that one Clergy person should not draw an other before those kind of Iudges appointing canonicall or ecclesiasticall punishments against them which did not obey Now this they might appoint iustly and lawfully without wrong or preiudice to any euen as a good Father that hath many children may commaund his children and also forbid them vnder a priuate and domesticke punishment that they doe not contēd before a Iudge about any controuersies amongst themselues but that they cease and lay downe all quarrell and differences vpon the iudgment of their father or brethren and by giuing his children this charge he doth not preiudice at all the authority of lawfull Iudges Euen so the Fathers of the councels haue inhibited their sonnes that is the Clergy men that they should maintaine no action nor question amongst them selues before secular Iudges not by taking away from the Laiques their power to heare and decide of their causes but by abridging the Clergie of their ancient liberty of going so freely vnto them as they vsed to do And this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authority and iurisdiction of temporall Magistrates but only to take a course by which the Clergie hauing businesse with the Clergy may easily attaine their right without so much noise and stirrings in Lay-mens courtes And lest any man should doubt whether these things stand thus or no I thought it worth my pains to set down the very decrees of the Counsels from which because they were not well vnderstoode this errour hath sprung that from thence the Reader may vnderstand the truth of our discourse The first then which decreed any thing touching this point was the 3. councell of Carthage held the yeare of our Lord 397. at which S. Augustine was present and subscribed the same In the 9. can of that councell it is thus written Also wee haue ordained that whosoeuer Bishop Priest and Deacon or Clerke when as a crime is charged vpon him in the Church or a Ciuill controuersie shall bee raised against him if he leauing the Ecclesiastick iudgement shall desire to be cleared by the publique iudgements although the sentence passe of his side that hee shall lose his place and this in a criminall iudgement But in a Ciuill that he foresee that which hee hath wonne if he desire to hold his place still For hee that hath free liberty to chuse his Iudges where hee will hee doth shew himselfe to be vnworthy of the fellowshippe of his brethren who conceiuing meanely of the whole Church sueth to the secular iudgement for helpe Whereas the Apostle commaundeth that the causes of priuate Christians should bee brought to the Church and be there determined Is there any word here whereby it may be gathered by any probable reason that the Councell meant to exempt the Clergie from the iurisdiction of secular Magistrates or doth declare that the Laickes are not competent Iudges for the Clergie Nay it sheweth the direct contrarie viz. that they doe confesse that the secular Iudges may by good right heare and decide the causes of Clergie persons and that they doe not disallow their iudgements as giuen by an incompetent Iudge but that they only endeuour this to restraine the giddinesse and forwardnesse of those Clerickes that when as a cause hath alreadie beene begun to bee debated in the Church forsaking and contemning the Ecclesiasticke Iudges doe submit themselues to the order and iudgement of Laickes in which case the Councell doth not disallow the sentence giuen by a secular Iudge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Iudge but a penaltie depriueth that Clerke of the fruit and benefite of such a sentence by reason of his lewdnesse and disorder Now in that the Fathers of that Councell did at that time acknowledge the Ciuill Magistrates to bee the competent Iudges of Clergy men by that it may bee vnderstood sufficiently that they restrained this their decree to that case wherein a crime is raised vpon a Clearke in the church or a ciuill controuersie set on foot against him Therfore out of these cases it was by this Canon lawfull for the Clergie without offence to prosecute their sutes in a ciuill court and to debate their businesse before a secular Iudge After followed the famous Councell of Chalcedon Ann. Dom 451. which also in the 9. Canon decreeth on this manner If any Clergy person haue businesse with a Clergie person let him not forsake his proper Bishop and runne to temporall iudgements but first let the businesse be sifted by the pr per Bishop or at least by the counsell of the same Bishop they shall receiue iudgement and order from them by whom both parties were content to be iudged If any shall doe otherwise he shall be subiect to the Canonicall consures Obserue how this Councell directeth her speech to the Clergie that they should not leaue their owne Bishops to goe to secular Iudges but not to temporall Magistrates and Iudges that they should not heare Clergie men comming to them and after the cause debated should pronounce sentence according to the course of law compell them to performe the iudgement Therefore by this Canon there is nothing taken from the authoritie of the Laitie For those words of the Canon or Decree Sedprius actio ventiletur apud proprium Fpiscopum doe sufficiently shew that the Fathers of the Councell doe only require that all the causes of Clergie men bee at the first hand examined by the Bishop secondly if there bee cause that they bee carried to the examination of the temporall Iudge For it is not likely or credibl that that word Primum was idly and super fluously set downe by so many worthy and wise men and so that Canon doth wholly accord with the Nouell Constitution of
Iustinian 82. made in fauour of the Clergie men That Clergie men should first bee conuented before their owne Bishops and afterwards before Ciuill Iudges Therefore the Ciuill Iurisdiction of secular Iudges ouer the Clergie is not weakened by this Canon but rather confirmed Likewise in the Councell of Agatha vnder King Alaricke Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same decreed Can. 32 That no Clergie man should presume to molest any man before a secular Iudge if the Bishop did not giue him licence The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decreâ—um not without very foule dealing both changing the reading and wresting the sense for whereas the Councell had said Clericus ne quenquam praesumat c. that he hath drawne to his owne opinion depraued in this manner Clericum nullus praesumat apud sâ—cularem Iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare that is Let no man presume to molest a Clergie man before a Secular Iudge c. That the prohibition may include the Laâ—cks also that they should not conuent a Clergy man before a Secular Iudge whereas it is made only for Clergie men without any mention at all of the Laitie Besides the second part of that Canon doth manifestly shew that the Councell is thus farre offended with the Laickes which draw the Clergie before Secular Iudgements and propoundeth Ecclesiasticall punishments against them if so bee they shall doe it wrongfully of a purpose to vex and molest them For it followeth in the same Canon But if any Secular man shall attempt wrongfully to torment and vex the Church and Clergie men by moouing of sutes before Secular Iudges and shall be conuicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church and from the Communion of the Catholikes vnlesse hee shall worthily repent but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Councell but also of the Epistle of Pope Marcellinus in eadem Cauâ— quaest Can 3. and for Clericus nullum hath written Clericus nullus that it is no maruell that the Canonists who did only reade the gatherings of Gratianus being deceiued by this false reading haue fallen into this errour which we now repichend But it is a maruell that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus and not rather the true and naturall section of the Authors themselues in his Controucisies Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 28. But in the first Councell of Matiscum which was held vnder King Guâ—tramnus An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner That no Clericke presume in what place soeuer to accuse any other brother of the Clergie or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular Iudge but let all matters of the Clergie be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop or Priest or Arch deacon And in the third Councell of Toletum which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the raigne of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus The continuall misgouernment and accustomed presumption of libertie hath so farre opened the way to vnlawfull attempts that Clerickes leauing their Bishops doe draw their fellow Clerkes to publike iudgements Therefore wee ordaine that the like presumption be attempted no more If any shall presume to doe it let him lose his cause and be banished from the Communion These are the solemne and almost the sole decrees of the Canons whereon they ground their errour who falsely supposed that Councels could or in fact did exempt the Clergie from the power of the Laitie whom the Canons themselues notwithstanding doe so euidentlie conuince that wee neede not bring any thing else besides them for to represse that conceit of theirs And these matters haue beene thus discoursed by mee not with that minde and intent to rippe vp the priuileges of the Clergie or because I either enuie that they enioy them or wish that they were taken from them They who know mee know very well in what account I haue euer had and haue Ecclesiasticall persons I doe honour the Priests of God as my parents and esteeme them worthy all honour but as an humble childe I aduise them that they be not vnthankfull nor disdaine their benefactors from whom they haue receiued so many priuileges They are bound to reuerence and honour their temporall Princes as their Patrons and Protectors and procurers of their libertie and not as many of them at this day vse to denie that they are beholding to Princes for those fauours but to ascribe all their liberties and exemptions and immunities to Pontificiall and Canonicall Constitutions which is the most vnthankfull part which can proceede from vnthankfull mindes For what temporall libertie soeuer they haue they haue receiued the same not from the Popes but from secular Princes nor from the Canons but from the Lawes CHAP. XXXIII I Will say more and I will speake the truth although peraduenture it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seeme hatefull which are neuer so little against their humour and disposition Therefore I will speake and I will speake a great word which peraduenture either no man hitherto hath remembred or if any haue hee hath not at the least put any in minde as hee ought whom it concerned to know the same And that is that the Clergie thorow the whole world of what order or degree soeuer they be are not to this day in any manner exempt and freede from the temporall authoritie of secular Princes in whose Kingdomes and countries they liue but are subiect to them in no other manner then other Citizens in all things which belong to ciuill and temporall administration and iurisdiction and that the same Princes haue power of life and death ouer them as well as ouer their other subiects and therefore that the Prince I speake of him who acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall affaires may either of his clemencie forgiue or punish according to the Law a Clergie man committing any fault whatsoeuer so the fault bee not meerely Ecclesiasticall This although it seeme hard and halfe a paradoxe to them who being possessed with the errour of the contrarie opinion doe thinke that they liue within the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Pope only and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of humane lawes besides notwithstanding I shall bring to passe in few words that they may plainly vnderstand that there is nothing more true then this proposition of mine so as they be onely willing to open their eares to â—eare the true reason thereof with indifferencie The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we haue set downe and prooued before out of the iudgement of the Diuines of the best note and shall presently bee demonstrated by necessary and euident conclusion drawne from thence First of all therefore this is set downe and granted and also confirmed with most firme reasons and testmonies that all both Clerickes and Laickes were in the power and authoritie of Kings and Emperours so
long as the Church serued vnder heathen Princes And this is the ground of our demonstration with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner beene set down and granted that is to say That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest because hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill the Law And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith it is certaine that all Clergie men continued in the same order and ranke as farre as concerned temporall subiection wherein they were before when their Princes liued in their infidelitie because the Law of Christ depriueth no man of his particular interest as hath beene said And in that regard priuileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergie which they should not haue needed at all if the Clergie had not remained and that by absolute right as before vnder the authoritie and iurisdiction of Princes These things are so cleere and plaine and so witnessed and proued by so many testimonies and monuments that it may be thought a needlesse paines to remember them in this place or to adde any thing to them Therefore let vs see that which followeth I meane let vs see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles by a manifest demonstration and necessarie conclusion It is in no place recorded by any Writer that the Princes who haue endowed the Clergie with these priuileges and exemptions did set them so free from themselues that they should not be further subiect vnto them nor acknowledge their Maiestie or obey their Commandement Reade those things which are written of those priuileges you shall not finde the least testimonie of so great immunitie amongst them all They only granted to the Clergie that they should not bee conuented before secular Magistrates but before their proper Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Iudges Now this is not to exempt the Clergie from the authoritie of the Princes themselues or to offer preiudice to their iurisdiction and authority if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergie mens causes in cases which are not meerely spirituall Nay Princes could not nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergie liuing in their kingdomes that libertie and immunitie that they should not bee subiect to them in their temporall authoritie and when they offend bee iudged and punished by them but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principalitie and gouernment For it is a propertie inseparable to Princes to haue power to correct offenders and lawfully to gouerne all the members of the Common-wealth I meane all his Citizens and subiects with punishing and rewarding them And as in a naturall bodie all the members are subiect to the head and are gouerned and directed by it so as it must needs seeme a monstrous bodie where are seene superfluous members and such as haue no dependencie of the head euen so in this politicke bodie it is very necessarie that all the members should bee subiect to the Prince as to the head and bee gouerned by him that is to receiue reward or punishment from him according as each of them deserue in the state But the Clerickes as the aduersaries confesse besides that they are Clerickes are also Citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill Common-wealth which is true and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdome and obtaine the first place Therefore as Citizens and parts of the ciuill Common-wealth they are subiect to the Prince neither can they although the Prince would but be subiect to him in temporalties and otherwise either were he no Prince or they no Citizens Therefore it is a foolish thing to suppose and imagine that a Clergy man being conuented for any cause whatsoeuer so it be not meerely spirituall may auoid the Palace of the soueraigne Prince or of him to whom the Prince vpon certaine knowledge hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof For in that Princes doe verie seldome heare the causes of the Clergie that argueth want not of power but of disposition Hence is it I meane out of this temporall authoritie of secular Princes ouer the Clergie that in our time Charles the V. being Emperour caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colonie to appeare before him to cleere himselfe of the crimes which the Clergie and the Vniuersitie said against him and that in many places the Princes haue reserued to themselues certaine offenses of the Clergie to be specially punished and doe commit the same to the knowledge and iudicature of their officers as are those crimes which are called Priuilegiate in France as of Treason bearing of Armes counterset money peace broken and the like neither are wee to thinke that heereby any iniurie is done to the Clergie or that the Ecclesiasticall libertie is in any manner hindred or diminished Many haue Ecclesiasticall libertie in their mouthes who know not a â—ot what it is We will in another place declare more plainly what it is and in what points it consisteth Seeing these things stand thus euery man I thinke may see that all the immunitie of Clergie men as well for their persons as for their causes and goods haue proceeded from secular Princes but not as some imagine is either due by the Law of God or granted them by the Pope or Canons For that which Bellarmine bringeth both for a supplement and a reason that he might proue how that the Pope and Councels did simply exempt Clerickes from the temporall iurisdiction viz. That the Imperiall Law ought to yeeld to the Canon Law that is not generally true but then only when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticke but the subiection or immunitie of Clergie men in ciuill affaires is not a matter meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but rather ciuill and temporall in which cases the sacred Canons doe not disdaine to come after the ciuill Lawes Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after That the Pope may command the Emperour ouer those things which belong to the authoritie of the Church As if hee should say that the Pope may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church For euen by this we may discerne that this is false that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes and Officers of Princes Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church for that was no lesse before but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring Hence arose that question whether it were lawfull for Princes euery one within his territories without any iniurie to the church in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the