Certain general reasons, prouing the lawfulnesse of the Oath of allegiance, written by R.S. priest, to his priuat friend. Whereunto is added, the treatise of that learned man, M. William Barclay, concerning the temporall power of the pope. And with these is ioyned the sermon of M. Theophilus Higgons, preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March last, because it containeth something of like argument

Certain general reasons, prouing the lawfulnesse of the Oath of allegiance, written by R.S. priest, to his priuat friend. Whereunto is added, the treatise of that learned man, M. William Barclay, concerning the temporall power of the pope. And with these is ioyned the sermon of M. Theophilus Higgons, preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March last, because it containeth something of like argument

Table of contents

Title page

TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD, CLEMENT the 8. Pope: W. Barclay wisheth health.

The contents of the seuerall chapters contained in this Booke.

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.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIIII.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

CHAP. XXII.

CHAP. XXIII.

CHAP. XXIV.

CHAP. XXV.

CHAP. XXVI.

CHAP. XXVII.

CHAP. XXVIII.

CHAP. XXIX.

CHAP. XXX.

CHAP. XXXI.

CHAP. XXXII.

CHAP. XXXIII.

CHAP. XXXIIII.

CHAP. XXXV.

CHAP. XXXVI.

CHAP. XXXVII.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

CHAP. XXXIX.

CHAP. XL.

CHAP. XLI.

CHAP. XLII.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

[Page] 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.

[Page]

[Page]

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 [Page] 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? [Page] 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, [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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 [Page] and vanitie thereof.

Chap. 19. He discusseth a passage in S. Bernard, touching the Materiall sword, and the words of Christ, Ecce duo gl [...]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 pro [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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. [...] 111. ad [...] Deo re [...]ertur dist 9. can 10. 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Th [...]. Bozim. sharpe Abettour for the Canonists aboue other men. Whom therfore a learned man & a famous preacher, as any is amongst the Iesu [...]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 [Page] 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, & Lib. 2. cap. 1 [...]. cals them new Diuines, & affirmeth, Lib. 5. cap. vlt. 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 Matth. 8. Luk. 9. 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 [Page] 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 Rom. 13. of God) each of them being included in his bounds, can [Page] not by any right enter vpon the borders of the other, and neither haue power ouer the other, as Can. duo sunt can. cum ad verum 96. dist. cap. nouit. de iudic. cap. per ve. nerabilem, qui filij sunt legit. S. Bernard truely and sweetly teacheth in his first booke, de Consider. ad Eugenium: Cap. 6. and amongst the later Diuines, Iohn Driedo. Lib. 2. de liber Christ. cap. 2. 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 Matth. 22. Mark. 12.. 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 In c [...]p inquisitions de sent. excom. 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 Dict. can. cum ad verum 96. dist. 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 [Page] 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.1 * 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 [Page] 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, 1 L. 2. C. cov. de legat. 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. L. S [...]re leges. D. de legib. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap. 3. the [Page] Pope be temporall Lord of the whole world,) that should Lib. 5. de Rom. [...]. [...]ap 3. 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 See the admonition to the reader. 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 [Page] opinion which affirmeth the same, hath beene assaied indeed and attempted by diuers, but hitherto could neuer be prooued of any sufficient and strong reason, and for the contrarie opinion much more weightie and more certaine reasons may be brought. For my part in regard of the zeale I beare to the Sea Apostolike, I could wish with all my heart, that it might be prooued by certaine and vndoubted arguments that this right belongs vnto it, being very ready to encline to that part, to which the weightier reason, and authority of truth do swaie. But now let vs come nearer to the disputation it selfe.

That it is euidently false, that the Pope hath authority and rule ouer Kings and Princes, it is certaine, euen by this; that it were an absurd thing, and vniust to say that heathen Princes are receiued by the Church, in harder and worser termes, then other particular men of the commons whosoeuer: or that the Pope hath at this day greater power ciuill ouer christian Princes, then in times past S. Peter & the rest of the Apostles, had ouer euery priuate man, that was a child of the Church: but they in those times had neuer any right or power temporall ouer christian lay-persons, therefore neither hath the Pope now a daies any temporall power ouer secular Princes. The assumption is prooned by this: because it is most certaine that in the time of the Apostles, the Ecclesiasticall power was wholy seuered from the ciuill, (I doe not hereweigh Bozius fooleries), and that this ciuill power was wholly in the hands of heathen Princes out of the Church. In somuch as the Apostles themselues, were within the temporall iurisdiction of the heathen, and that both Albert Pighius and Iob. 5. ca. 7. Hierar. Eccl. l. b. 1. de pon. Rom. cap. 29. Robert Bellarmine and [...] 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 [Page] 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 At Rom. 13.: 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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) I [...]b 5. de Rom. Pont. C. 7. 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 Laymen 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 [Page] 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 L. illud D. ad leg. Aquil..

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, Act. 5. 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 1. Cor. 5. for what [Page] 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. Cap 14.

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 [Page] 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. Lib. 2. Epist. 61. indict. 11. 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 [Page] 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. Serm 29 le [...]. tom. 10. 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 heart, those wordes doe testifie, which he writeth more expresly about the end of that Epistle of his necessarie subiection and obedience toward the Emperour. Mauricius had made a law, which, though it were vniust and preiudiciall to the libertie of the Church, yet Gregorie, receiuing a Commandement from the Emperour to publish it, did send it accordingly into diuers countries to be proclaimed. Therfore thus he concludes that Epistle: I being subiect to the Commandement, haue caused the same law to bee sent abroad into diuers parts of the world: and because the same law is no whit pleasing to Almightie God, behold I haue signified so much to my honorable Lordes by this letter of my suggestion. Therefore in both respects I haue discharged my dutie, in that I haue both performed my Obedience to the Emperour; and haue not concealed that which I thought on Gods behalfe.

O diuine Prelate, and speech, to be continually remembred to all succeeding Bishops of all ages. But ô God! whether is that gentle and humble confession banished out of our world? to which this threatning and insolent speech against Kings and Emperors hath by little and little succeeded: We being placed in the supreme throne of iustice, possessing the supreme power ouer all Kings, and Princes of the vniuersall earth, ouer all Peoples, Countries, Nations, which is committed to vs not by humane but by diuine ordinance, doe declare, will, command Ex. [...]. 5. [...] Regin. Aug. & [...] 5. contra Reg. Franc. : &c. which word it is plaine euen by this, that they are false and vaine, because [Page] the Pope hath neither spirituall nor temporall power ouer vnbeleeuing Princes and People, as Bellarmine with very good reason sheweth in his bookes of the Bishop of Rome Lib. 5. cap 2.:

These, and such like fashions as these, who will they not driue into amazement and wonder at so great a change of the Popes state and gouernment? or doe they not giue to all men iust cause to enquire, wherefore the former Popes in the most flowrishing age of the Church, acknowledged themselues to be the seruants, subiects, and vassals of Princes, and obeied their authority in temporall matters, when as they notwithstanding were ouer them in spirituall: and our later Popes professe themselues to be Lords of all Kings, Princes, Countries, and Nations? In very truth, this matter doth giue no small occasion to many learned men and good Catholikes, to doubt of the iustnesse of this change: yea indeed to beleeue that a temporall gouernement so great and so absolute had his beginning in the persons of Popes, not from God omnipotent, but from the impotent ambition of certaine men: and that it was not in the beginning conferred from heauen vpon Peter, by the Lord Christ, but was vsurped by certaine successors of Peter, many ages after, according to the fashion of the world: that is, certaine Popes, hauing a massed huge store of wealth and riches, and fostering their blind ambition and sury, by little and little challenged that greatnesse to themselues, whereby they laboured and stroue, that it might be lawfull for them to take away and bestow, what soeuer Kingdomes and Principalities are in the world. Sure they were men, and as other men are, sometimes too greedy of vanity: as was he, who only for the malice he bare against Philip the Faire, King of France, set forth a decretall constitution Cap. [...]ler de immunit. ec. l. in 6. which brought foorth so many scandalls, so many dangers, that it deserued foorthwith to be abrogated by Boniface his successor Clem. de imunit. eccl. vbi glos. [...]d nota [...]. Now the admirable and miserable assentation of certaine flatterers, gaue increase and nourishment to that vice in them, who by [Page] their fond and foolish assertions, such as now these Bozian fancies are, affirmed that all things were lawfull for the Pope, and that by Gods law all things were subiect to him. Whereby we may maruaile the lesse, if many of them did so far forget their Bishoplike and Apostolike modesty, that through a desire to enlarge their power, they encroched vpon other mens borders. Of whom Gaguinus a learned man and religious taxing by the way, an authority so far spread, and vsurped, as he calls it. Lib 1 hist [...]. Therefore so great saith he, is their height and state, that making small reckoning of Kings, they glory that they may doe all things. Neither hath any in my time come to the Popedome, who, hauing once got the place, hath not forthwith aduanced his nephewes to great wealth and honor. And long before Gaguinus S. Bernard: Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium. Doth not in these dates ambition, more then deuotion weare the thresholds of the Apostles? Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium. vpon this occasion Platina. In vita Bonif. [...]. In this manner dieth that Boniface, who endeuoured to strike terror rather then religion into Emperors, Kings, Princes, Nations Peoples: who also laboured to giue Kingdomes and to take them away, to famish men and to reduce them at his owne pleasure. And the same Gaguinus in another place: Lib [...] hist. in vita Philip. Pul. Such an end of his life had Boniface the disdainer of all men, who little remembring the precepts of Christ, indeuoured to take away, and to bestow Kingdomes at his pleasure: when as he knew well enough, that he stood in his place here in earth, whose kingdome was not of this world, nor of earthly matters, but of heauenly, who also had procured the Popedome, by subtelty and wicked practise, and kept Caelestinus in prison, while he liued, (a most holy man) of whom he receiued honor.

CHAP. IV.

NOw I do chiefly find two things, which seem to haue giuen vnto the Popes the opportunity to arrogate so great power to themselues. The one is, the very great honor, which (as indeed there was reason,) was giuen to the chiefe Pastor of soules, by Princes and christian [Page] people, and yet ought to be giuen to him: and the forestalled and setled opinion of the sanctity of that sea of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, which is conspicuous and excelleth amongst all men in all spirituall honor and authority: and in that respect hath been beyond all other most increased and honored with wealth and riches. By these meanes all men, were very easily perswaded to beleeue, that neither the Pope in regard of his holinesse would challenge to himselfe any authority, which did not appertaine vnto him: and also, that it was not lawfull for a christian man in any manner to disobey the Popes commandements. Whereby it came to passe, that sundry Popes, whose mindes were too much addicted to ambition and vaine glory, embouldned and hartned through the confidence of this so great reuerence and affection of men towards them, drew to themselues this power ouer Kings, which was vtterly vnknowen to the first successors of Peter. The which also passed the more currant by reason of the preoccupate and now engrafted conceipt of the people and ignorant folke, who being possessed of this opinion of holinesse, did verily beleeue that the Pope could not erre, either in word or deed: and also, by the writings of certaine cleargy men catholikes, and Canonists, who either erring through ignorance of the truth, or wholly resolued into flattery of their Prince the Pope, of whom they did depend, did heape and lay vpon his only person, all the power, which is in the vniuersall world, with these allurements and inuitations the Popes, who of their owne accord ran with speed enough toward honor and greatnesse, were now much more enflamed as it were with certaine new firebrands of ambition and aspiring thoughts. For all, how many soeuer held that sea lawfully, gouerned the Church with an authority See the admonition to the reader. equall to Peter: but not all of them burning with the zeale of Peter, gouerned it with equall disposition to him. Nay I can not write it without griefe of heart it is certaine, that many crept into that place by violence and villany, others did breake into it, [Page] and defiled the most holy Chaire with the filthinesse of their liues and behauiour: others also; who were aduanced to the height of that dignitie, burned with an ambitious desire of ruling, and out of their emulation and enuie against secular Kings and Princes, endeuoured by all deuise and cunning to enlarge the bounds of their gouernment, which in the beginning was meerely spirituall, with the encrease of temporall Iurisdiction and authoritie. Which affectation, although at the first diuers supposed to be a grace and ornament to that great dignitie, which the Vicar of Christ in earth, and the successor of blessed Peter doth hold, yet when some of them grew to that insolencie, that they supposed it lawfull for them not onely to throw downe Kings from their Thrones, but also to giue away great and goodly kingdomes, for reward, nay for a pray, and to grant them to any that would seaze vpon them, then surely there was no reasonable man, but hee greatly misliked that vnreasonable pride of minde, and either shed teares, or conceiued great anger at the same. Who was there at that time that did not either mourne inwardly, or gnash his teeth in his head, when that most proud Pope whom we mentioned before, presumed so arrogantly to depriue that most mightie Monarch Philip the Faire of his kingdome, and to bestow it together with the Empire vpon Albert Duke of Austria? And that for no other reason in the world, but because the King had laid his Legate by the heeles, for threatning him in so saucie manner as he did, as though by that Act, the King of France, (whom a little before Innocent the 3 had ingeniously confessed Cap. per venerabilem. qui fil. sunt legit. that he had no superiour in temporall matters) he had resigned his kingdome to the Pope as Client and Feudaire to him, for so he denoūceth to the King by the Archdeacon of Narbona, that the kingdome of Fraence, was escheted to the Church of Rome for his Contumacie, and violating of the law of Nations, which speach of his, what doth it else imply, but that this kingdome, in all mens iudgement the most free and flourishing kingdome of the world, and by [Page] example and precedent thereof, all other Christian kingdomes, are as Benefices and Feudes of the Church of Rome, and euen of the Pope himselfe? seeing they could not otherwise escheate to that Church for Contumacie & felonie, (as they tearme it,) vnlesse the direct temporall Dominion and fee of those kingdomes were in the same Church.

The other occasion of affecting so great a temporall Iurisdiction was presented by the sword of Excommunication, the principall bulwarke of the spirituall gouernment; which was so great terror to the world, that the people, durst neither neglect nor contemne the Popes curses; being armed & fortified howsoeuer by right or by wrong, with the thunderbolt of Excommunication: and this voice did vsually sound out of Pulpits, That euery Excommunication, although it were vniust was to be feared, and that it belonged only to the Pope to iudge whether it were iust or vniust. Besides that also, that a man ought neither to eat, nor to haue any Commerce with Excommunicate persons Can. ficut Can. excommunicatos. xi. q. 3.. With which warnings and threatnings the Subiects of Princes excommunicate being for the most part terrified, did fall from their Obedience: and that which in Euils of this Nature was the worst of all, the Pope partly by threatning of the like Curses partly by perswasions and gifts, raised other Princes against a Prince that had been excommunicate by him. For this cause those Princes vpon whom this malice of the Popes did sit so hard, being wrapped in so many dangers on euery side, and exposed to such a hazard of their estate, made choise rather to pacific an angry Pope with the submission of their Crowne and Scepter, (and to redeeme their vexations) then for their owne particular to embroyle all the world, and to set all a fire with sedition and armes. This short and compendious way had Popes, to exanimate and daunt Kings and Princes with feare, and almost to obtaine a victorie without striking stroke. Notwithstanding many Princes of good resolution withstood such attempts and proffers of Popes, and that [Page] so stiffely, that the mischiefe which followed thereon turned rather to the Popes hinderance then the Prince. But in this place the Reader may please to be aduertised, that this Opinion which was so rife in euery mans mouth, That euery Excommunication is to be feared, ought to be vnderstood with this exception, without that it manifestly appeare, that it is vniust, for then it is neither to be regarded, nor feared, so as the partie excommunicate be free from contempt and presumption, for then it workes backwards, and hurts not him against whom it is cast, but him, from whom it is cast. Of which sort that Excommunication seemeth to be, which is charged vpon Subiects because they obey their King or Prince being excommunicate in those things which belong to temporall Iurisdiction, and doe not repugne the Commandements of God, as shall hereafter be declared in a more conuenient place. Cap. 21. Besides neither is that alwaies true, That we ought not to haue commerce or eat meate with Excommunicate persons, for in this case it is not true, where the danger is apparant, least by such a separation some great mischiefe arise in the Church as vsually it doth, when a Prince is excommunicate, if his Subiects forbeare to communicate with him, for there is neuer any Prince so much forlorne, who cannot finde friends and clients, by whose aide and armes hee may maintaine his cause, although it be neuer so vniust, with great hurt both to Church and common-weale, whereof both in the memorie of our Forefathers and in our owne age, there haue beene lamentable examples in Christian countries: where I say any such thing is feared, a separation of bodies is not necessarie, But it is enough to be seuered from such in heart, to be distinguished by life and manners, for the preseruation of Peace and Unitie, which is to bee preserued for the health of those, which are weake: as S. Austine excellently teacheth, Lib. 3 contra Epist. Parm. c. 2. whereby it seemeth to follow, that the Pope doth very vnaduisedly, who forbids the Subiects communion and societie with their Prince so oft as no small both diuision and confusion hangeth ouer Church and Common-wealth, [Page] yea that in such a Case 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 Psal. 118.. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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. Lib 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 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 Lib. 1. de indict. 13. epist. 31., 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 I. 5 § generaliter. D. de don. inter vir. & vxor.. Whereby it is concluded that hee who is alone cannot alien any thing, cannot yeeld to a sute moued vpon the same thing Panor. in cap. ludum 54. de elect. & cap. [...] pridem. [...] pact., 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 [Page] 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 cap. 18.. For [Page] thus he saith. And now where as the aduersarie obiecteth in the fourth place, touching the custome of our ancestors, who endured many hereticall Princes, as Constantius and Valens, Arius, Anastasius an Eutychian, Heraclius a Monothelite, and others besides, it makes nothing to the matter. For the Church ought not rashly and inconsideratly to abuse her power. Moreouer it falleth out not very seldome, that the power of certaine Kings is so great, being also ioined with wickednesse and cruelty, that the Ecclesiasticall censure neither profiteth any thing to restraine them, and doth very much hurt to Catholike people, vpon whom these Princes prouoked do rage the more. For I pray you, what had it auailed the Church in times past if she had assaied to excōmunicate & to depose either the Ostrogoth Kings in Italy, or the Visegothes in Spain, or the Vandales in Afrik, although she might haue done it very iustly? and the very same ought to be vnderstood of Constantius and Valens, and others aboue named, and indeed then the times were such, as that the Bishops ought rather to haue been ready to suffer Martirdome, then to punish Princes. But when the Church perceiued, that now some place was opened to her power, either with the spirituall profit of the Princes themselues, or at least without the mischeefe and hurt of the people, she was not wanting to her selfe, as the examples alleadged before doe prooue. For thus the Church iudged that Leo Isaurus was to be depriued of halfe his Empire, and Henry the fourth of the whole, and Childerike of the Kingdome of France, and indeed afterward both Leo wanted part of his Empire, and Henry the whole, and Childerike his kingdome of France. Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest, (as the aduersary dreameth,) because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire, for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry, and Childerike, who succeeded no lesse lawfully, but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people, these she might. Thus he, in which words he yeeldeth a double reason of the diuersity, wherefore the Church endured Constantius, Iulianus; Valens, Valentinianus the yonger, Anastasius Heraclius, and other hereticall Princes, but did not [Page] forbeare Leo Isaurus, Henry IV. Childerike, and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing: One forsooth, because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to haue been ready rather to suffer Martirdome, then to punish Princes. The other because the Church or the Pope, could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius. Iulianus, Valens, and the rest of that sort aboue mentioned, but as for Leo, Henry, Childerike and the others she could; therefore them she endured, these she endured not. But let vs see if both the reasons of this diuersity be not false, and grounded vpon mere and strange falshoods, and yet none hath assigned any better, nor as I thinke can assigne any, saue only that, which doth vtterly ouerthrow the cause of the aduersaries, which is that the Church did tolerate those former Emperors, and Princes, because as yet that blind ambition was not crept into her, by which the succeeding Popes caried away with greedinesse of glory, vsurped that temporall iurisdiction whereof we speake. Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spirituall iurisdiction, which they exercised with indifferency vpon all persons, did wholly forbeare the temporall power, which they did know that it belonged not vnto them: so recommending the cause of the Church to the iudgement of God, did with humility and patience expect the conuersion or confusion of wicked Princes. But I returne to the reasons giuen by this Author, that we may see, how faulty they are.

And indeed to deale plainly, his former reason or cause of diuersity seemeth to me very vnworthy and vnfit to be alleadged by any Catholike, much lesse by a Diuine, which I euen for this cause haue much a doe to read without teares. For what? are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be souldiors, then Martyrs: or to defend the law of God & the Church rather by swords then by sermons? But he saith not so, may some say. What then? either he saith nothing, or all together some such thing. For his meaning is, that the difference of these and those former times, as touching the coertion of [Page] Princes, consisteth in this, that then the Bishops ought rather to haue been fit to vndergoe Martirdome, then to reduce Princes into order. Which being so, who can not easily perceiue by his proper iudgement, and naturall logike that either this reason stands not vpon dissimilia, that is termes of vnlikenesse, or that is to be placed in the other part, which we haue set downe. And yet, I dare boldly affirme, that there neuer time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselues to Martirdome. The lion euery where gapeth for his pray, the wolfe stands watching at the sheepfolds; most mighty Kings and Princes, many Nations and people, buckle themselues and arme against the flocke of Christ, and doth this man thinke, that the time doth not require, that the Bishops should not expose themselues to Martirdome, and lay downe their liues for the sheepe? what when the Church flourished, and was spread, thorough the whole world, the Bishops ought to hope and looke for nothing but Martirdome: and now, when matters are come to this passe, that the Church is grieuously tossed and tumbled, and as it were crouded into a corner of Europe, may the Bishops bend their mindes without all feare of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martirdome? what, because in these daies, they maintaine great traines and retinues, and troopes of horse and foote, to defend themselues, their liues, and Persons, and by force and armes to deliuer the Church from the iniurie of so many Princes and people that spoile her? Or rather because now adaies, very few vndertake the Bishoprickes with that minde and condition that they should be encombred and vexed with those troubles either of minde or bodie, which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith: but that they may passe their life with case and pleasure: and that they may aduance and magnifie their owne house and bloud by the goods of the poore and Patrimonie of Christ? Or lastly, because that being hirelings [Page] and mercenarie Pastors, they doe beleeue that it is very lawfull for them, when the Wolfe comes and teares the Flocke, to take their heeles, and to auoide Martirdome? I doe not bring forth these things to cast iniurie or enuie vpon the Ecclesiasticall order, which I euer reuerenced and honoured from a child. Neither doe I doubt but there are many who doe keepe most carefully and watchfully the flocke committed to them, being ready vpon all occasions euen with their bodies to defend the sheepe committed to their keeping, and with their bloud to seale the confession of Christ. But I speake all this in reproofe of the former answere, and with all to their shame, who now in euery place affect the dignities of the Church, without any purpose of life fit for the Church, but that they themselues may liue brauely and gallantly, and that they may consume that wealth, which the puritie of an Ecclesiasticall life doth well deserue, vpon vses either vnlawfull, or surely not necessarie, very dishonestly and to the great scandall of the Church. O the times! O the manners of men! The greatest part of the Christian common weale, within these hundred yeeres, or there abouts, is vtterly perished. Euen by this very meane that many Bishops and Priests, being more forward to armes then to Martirdome, haue vnaduisedly followed the meaning of the former answere: supposing forsooth that which was not so, that Heresie might easily bee oppressed by armes, while themselues in the meane time held their owne course of life, that is, cherished their owne former pleasure and slothfulnesse. Therefore they saw the Wolfe comming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolues themselues. I speake no secrets now, Scotland and England are my witnesses, and other Countries which are slipped into* heresie, wherein although many resisted manfully, yet the See the admonition to the Reader. greatest part of the Church-men did not endure so much as the first assault, but presently in shamefull manner put in practise their treason and defection, partly that they might enioy the fauour to liue freely which was both promised [Page] and permitted vnto them by the Nouators, partly, least that, they being depriued of all their present meanes, should fall to beggerie: whereas, if like those first Fathers in times past, they had bent themselues to Martirdome, they had in the very infancie destroied that most horrible Monster. It may bee, that the Author of that booke, wrote such things of a good minde, and without any fraud: but surely it cannot bee, that as the state of the Church affaires doth now stand, they should be thought to be of any weight or moment. For when as all the world almost, was bound to the catholike Church, velut nexu Man [...]ipioque as the Ciuilians say, that is, by the straitest bands of seruice and dutie, euen then saith he were those times such, as wherein the Bishops ought to haue beene more ready to haue suffered Martirdome, then to haue enforced Princes to order: and now, when partly Infidels, partly Heretikes haue spread ouer all Asia, Afrike, Europe, one or two kingdomes onely excepted, and that the Church is reduced almost to so great straites as euer it was, he is not of the minde that the Bishops are required by the same necessitie to performe this dutie. But surely this is too much either negligence in searching, or indulgence in iudging and aduising; neither ought a learned man and a Diuine as the Author seemeth to be, to open to the Prelates of the Church, who are as it were by a certaine storme caried into the same licence of liuing, I say to open them so easie a way to forsake their dutie, that they may suppose, that they ought not to be so ready in these daies to Martirdome, as to raise warre against euill Princes, who it is certaine that without warres, they can neuer be reduced into order, and depriued of their kingdomes. How much righter were they (who whether they were the first of the Iesuites, or of some other Order, for I haue it onely by report) presented themselues to the Cardinals at Rome, and euen as they passed in state according to the manner, did very sharpely reprooue their effeminatenesse, their ryot, & their carelesnesse, because that the most turbulent tempest [Page] of the Lutherane heresie being risen a little before, that time taught the Prelates of the Church an other manner of life, and required other fashions at their hands. Therefore by these it is plaine, that the Author of the answere is much deceiued, in laying the reason of the difference in the dissimilitude of those ancient and these times, as far as concernes the dutie, state and condition of the Bishops and Prelates of the Church.

CHAP. VII.

THe other reason which he brings in, is nothing better. That the Church forsooth did not therefore beare with Constantius Valens and others, for that they lawfully succeeded in the Empire, no more than they did with Leo, Henrie, and Childerike, which no lesse lawfully succeed, but because she could not without hurt of the people correct them, these she could. For this is most false, and I woonder that Bellarmine followed this reason elsewhere Lib 5 de Rom. Pont. ca. 7.. I say, it is most false, that the Church could not coerce and chastise them as easily as these, I will not say more easily, and without the hurt of the people, whether she would haue attempted the matter by armes, or vse some policie, and the meane of some deuout person, for at this time the whole world was Christian, vnder Constantius, (as is euident by a letter of Constantine the Great, to the Church recorded by Eusebius and Nicephorus,) and the greatest part of it orthodoxe: so as they wanted not strength to oppresse the Emperour, if they had held it lawfull or godly to take vp armes and contend against a lawfull Prince. And truely it is credible that God would honour with a victorie both easily and not very costly for bloud, his owne souldiers who should vndertake such a warre, not of hatred or ambition, but of a meere zeale to preserue the Church from ruine. Moreouer there was a great multitude of monkes in Egypt and Lybia, and an innumerable companie of other godly men of all sorts swarmed [Page] all ouer Asia and Europe: amongst whom no doubt there were many of no lesse zeale, then that wretch who murdered Henry the 3 king of France, but furnished with more knowledge and grace, whereby they prescribed a meane to inconsiderate, headlong and rash zeale. These men if it had beene lawfull, might easily haue dispatched the Emperour, without tumult of warre, and noyse of armes, and if so be the Church had had any power ouer him, they might haue put the same in execution, without any harme to the people.

What should I speake of Iulianus the successor of Constantius? Could not the Church thinke you chasten him without any harme at all to the people? when as being a shamefull Apostate, and such a one as neuer was found amongst Christians, he had his whole armie which he cō manded consisting of Christians, for euen after his death, when Iouinianus being by generall consent chosen Emperor, had proclaimed that himselfe was a Christian, & therfore that he would not cōmand an army of Infidels Ruffin. lib. 2. hist eccles. ca. 1. Socra. Schol. lib. 3. cap. 22. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 1., the souldiers answered, and generally cried out, Neuer feare noble Emperour, neither doe you refuse our gouernment, as vnwoorthie: for you are like to be a Commander of Christians, who are brought vp in the discipline of pietie, for we are Christians: and those which be of the elder sort learned Constantinus his instruction, & the younger sort of Constantius. Neither did he that died last rule so long time, as could serue the turne to settle the poison in those few that had been circumuented & abused by him. I could wish that both the author of that booke, & the Reader of this, would consider diligently. Whether the Church seconded with so great power, had not been able with ease to take that Emperour away, without any harme of the people: especially seeing the Emperors were at that time created by the souldiers alone, who amongst those first times of Religion, and hope of Martyrdome, esteemed nothing more honorable, then to beleeue and obey their Prelates: deliuering to them the law and will of God. Now if they had learned in those Schooles of the [Page] most holy Fathers, that it was lawfull for the Church to depriue a wicked Prince of his gouernment, and that it is lawfull for such subiects to take away and murder such a Ruler, either by open force, or secret practise, there was nothing more easie for them then to depriue Iulian of his empire, or take away his life, and without any tumult, or danger, or publike losse to suffect an other at their pleasure in his place. For now the right of nominating the Emperour, was by long custome supposed to belong to the armie, as also in very deed, Iouinianus first, and after Valentinianus, both confessors of Christ, after the death of of Iulianus, were both aduanced to the Empire by the same armie. Nay what will you say, that although the whole armie would not haue conspired against the enemy of Christ: yet those souldiers alone whom we mentioned out of Nazianzen in our books De Regno [...]. 5., together with Iouinianus the Confessor, would with little a doe haue 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 [Page] 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. Orat. 1. in Iulian. 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 [Page] 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, In Psal. 124. 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 [Page] 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 Ad sororem suam Marcellinam. epist. 33. 11. 5., 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 [Page] 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 S [...]zomen. lib. 7 ca. 13. Nicephor. li. 12 ca. 20.. Seeing these things stand thus, I would now wish the Aduersaries that [Page] 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 lib 3 ca 5. & lib. 4. ca. 5..

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 [Page] 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 Cap. 3..

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, I [...]b 5 hist. [...] 7. Armen. lib. 3. cap. 26. who speakes to Childerike King of France, vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them iniuriously, in these words: If any of v [...] 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, [Page] 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 Cap. 3..

Fiftly, the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen In Ep. ad I [...]ed. [...]eno [...]arb.: 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 Math. 18.. 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 [Page] 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 seru [...]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 [Page] 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 [...]. & alij. 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 He [...]ry the XII. O [...]to Frisingen witnesseth, (whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for bloud, and for learning and for integritie of life [...]) who write, of the Excommunication [...] S. otu [...] in Chronico. anno [...]. and deposition of the said Henrie done by Gregorie the VII. in this manner Lib. 1. cap [...]. de tra [...]s [...]t. Imp & li. 4 de Roman Pont. ca. 13.. 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 P [...]nitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome, and that Theodosius was [...]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 Lib. 6. Cl [...]o. ca. 35.: 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 [Page] 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 [...] iniquitie: therefore I die in banishment. Therefore because the kingdome being cut off by the Church, was grieuously [...] in her Prince, the Church also bereaued of so great a Pastor, who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeale and authoritie, conceaued no small griefe.

Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people: They that write that the Bishop of Rome, whom they meane in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperour, because hee could chastise him without hurt to the people, it must needs be that either they haue not read this author, or that they haue no care of their credite, who ensnare themselues in so manifest an vntruth. If they knew not this before, let them learne now at the last out of this graue writer, that that is false which they ignorantly giue out for true: and I wish them to consider, and iudge vnpartially, if it had not been better for that Gregorie the Pope, should haue suffered the wils & desperate maners of Henry like to Constantius, Iulianus, Valens, and other Emperours who vexed the Church, and with teares and praiers to intret the goodnes of God either for his recouerie or destruction, rather than by one insolent and strange act, and that very vnnecessary to stir vp so many schismes and murders, so many sackings of people and Cities, so many disgraces shamefull against the Sea Apostolike, so many warres against the Popes, and other furious Tragedies with the destruction of all the people, and to nourish and continue these being stirred vp, to the exceeding mischiefe of the Church. It may be that Gregorie did it of a [Page] good minde, (let God iudge of the intention) but it cannot be that he did it rightly, wisely, and according to dutie, nor but that he erred very wide, according to the manner and counsell of a man, when he assumed that to himselfe, which in truth was not his: that is to say, the office of deposing an Emperour, and the power to substitute an other in his place, as though the fee of that humane kingdome had belonged to him, which that verse doth sufficiently declare, which is reported by Otto, and aboue is transcribed by vs.

Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho.

Now it is certaine, that it is not alwaies well done and according to the will of God, which is done euen of men, otherwise very good, thorough heat of holinesse, and a good zeale. Moses. while he killed the Egiptian, with a zeale to defend the Hebrew, sinned. Oza thorough a zeale to vphold the Arke of the Lord swarue, and lying a tone side, touched it, and died. Peter of a zeale to defend his Lord and Master, cut of Malchus his eare, and was rebuked for it. Hence S. Ambrose to Theodosius Lib. 5. epis. 29.. I know that you are godly, mercifull, gentle, and peaceable, louing faith and the feare of the Lord: but for the most part something or other deceiues vs, some haue the zeale of God, but not according to knowledge Rom. 10.. Inconsiderate zeale often inciteth to mischiefe.

Therfore in my opinion, there was a great fault in Pope Gregory about this businesse, because he did not obserue, that it belonged to the dutie of the cheefe Pastor, rather to let passe one mans wickednesse vnpunished, then thorough a desire to correct the same, to wrap the innocent and harmelesse multitude in danger. And therefore he ought not to haue excommunicate that Emperor, whose wickednesse so great a number of men had conspired to maintaine, that they could not be separated without a schisme, a renting, nay not without the dissolution of the whole Church. The great light of the Church S. Austine aduised the same many ages agoe, both holily and wisely, and prooued the same clearely out of the writings of the [Page] [...]. Apostle Paul, whose iudgement was so well liked by the Church, that she recorded it amongst the Canons, and therefore worthy that I should transcribe it into this place, and to be written not with [...]ike, but with gold, nor in paper, that will quickly weare, but in [...]int and adamant, or if there be any thing more durable and lasting then they. The chastisement, saith he, of many can not be whol [...]ome, but w [...]en he is chasti [...], that hath not a multitude to partake with him. But when the same a [...] case hath possessed many, there is [...], but to gre [...]e and mourne, that [...] from their destruction, [...] re [...]caled to holy [...]. Ezech [...]e [...] Least when [...] they root vp the wheat also: nor [...] the Lords [...]orn [...], but they themselues [...] amongst the [...]. And-therefore the same [...] out many who were corrupted [...] writing to the same [...] in his [...]econd [...], did not againe prescribe, that they should not eat with such: for they were many. Neither could it be did of them. [...]. If any brother be called a fornicator; [...] any such like that they [...] much as eat with such, but he saith [...]. least when I come againe to you, God doe humble me, and I lament many [...] haue sinned before, and haue not repented, for the [...] and fornication, which they haue committed. By this mourning of his; threatning that they are rather to begun [...] with [...] from God, then by that castigation that [...] may forbeare their company. And a litle after, indeed if the contag [...]on of sinning haue taken hould of a multitude the [...] mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary [...], for [...] that [...] of Excommunication) are both [...] they prooue [...] more trouble the weake ones, that be good th [...] [...] the st [...]ut ones, that be wicked.

Seeing these things stand thus, there is none as I suppose, by comparing S. Austines rule, which also is the rule [Page] of the Church, with the practise of Gregorie against Henrie, but will euidently see, that the Pope erred greatly, that would excommunicate an Emperour, whose party a huge multitude both of the Cleargie and laity did follow, with manifest danger of a grecuous schisme, and much more, when as by an odious sentence he went about to depriue him of the right of his Empire, (to which the Bishop himselfe had no title in the world: that it is no maruell if as Sig [...]ert w [...]toth, the said Gregorie a little before his death repented him of all those things, which he had done against the Emperor.

I am willing to set downe the place of Sig [...]bert, because it contemeth not his owne opinion, which is suspected to the aduersaires, because he followed Henricus his partie, but the historicall narration of an other author [...]..

Pope [...], saith he, who is also called Gregorie the 7. dieth in banishment at Salernum. O [...] him I find it thus [...]: We would haue you know who are carefull of the Ecclesiasticall charge, that the Lord Apostolike [...], who also is Gregorie, lying now at the point of death, ca [...]ed to him one of twelue Cardinalls, whom he cheefly loued aboue the rest, and confessed, to God, and S. Peter, and to the whole Church, that he had greatly offended in the pastroall charge, which was committed to him to gouerne, and by the instigation of the Deuill, had raised anger and hatred against mankind. Then at last he sent the foresaid confessor to the Emperor, and to the whole Church, to wish all grace and indulgence to them, because he saw, his life was at an end, and instantly he put on his [...] vesture and remitted and loosed the bands of all his curses to the Emperor, and to all christian people, the liuing and the dead, the spiritually and the la [...]y, and willed his owne [...] to depart out of [...] his house, and the friends of the Emperor to a [...]cend into it.

CHAP. X.

NO [...] [...] to th [...] Bishop Frisingensis, a man most [...], as I said, and [Page] almost an eye witnesse of these things. Hee both in the place produced by vs, and also in others, bewraieth plainly, that he allowed not that decree of the Pope, touching the deposing of the Emperour, but that he holds it to be new, insolent, and vniust. For first for the noueltie, and insolencie of that Act, he writeth thus; I read and read againe the Actes of the Romane Kings and Emperors, and doe finde no where, that any of them before this was excommunicate, or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome. And againe in the first booke touching the gestes of Frederike. [...] Gregorie the VII. saith he, who then held the Bishoprike of the Citie of Rome, decrees, that the Emporour as one forsaken of his friends, should be shaken with the sword of Excommunication. The noueltie and strangenesse of this action did so much more vehemently affect the Empire already mooued with indignation, because before that time neuer any such sentence was knowen to haue been published against the Princes of the Romanes. Now he declares the iniustice and iniquitie of the fact, in diuers respects: First, because amongst those euils and mischiefes which did spring out of that decree of the Pope, he reckons the mutation and defection both of Pope and King: that Pope was set aboue Pope, as King aboue King by which wordes he shewes that both of them by a like right, or ratherby a like wrong was made, that as Pope was set vpon Pope by the Emperour vniustly, so also was King vniustly set vpon King by the Pope. Then, in that he saith, Because therefore the kingdome in his Prince, &c. what doth that imply other, then that by reason of the Empire violated in the Prince, the Church was violated in the Bishop, or else, for the kingdome wounded in the Prince, the Church was wounded in the Bishop. Betweene which seeing he makes no difference of right or wrong, and both of them could not be done iustly, it followeth that hee thinketh both of them was done vniustly.

Moreouer hee calleth as well the defection of Rodolphus, whom the Pope had created Emperour, as the insurrection [Page] of Henrie his sonne of the Excommunicate Father, I say he calleth them both openly and simply plaine Rebellion, which surely he would neuer haue done, if hee had beleeued that Henry was lawfully depriued of his Empire, for there can bee no rebellion, but against a Superiour, and therefore it could not be against an Heretike, who if he were justly depriued and deposed was no more a Superiour. Therefore he thus writeth of Rodolphus Lab. 1. degest. Frideria. cap 6.. And not long after the two foresaid Captaines Guelfe and Rodolphus, rebelling against their Prince, vpon what occasion it is vncertaine, are ioyned with the Saxons. And a little after: But the Bishop of Rome Gregorie, who at this time as it hath beere said, stirred vp Princes against the Emperour, writ his letters secretly, and openly to all, that they should create an other Emperour. But heere we must know by the way, that he saith, vpon what occasion it is doubtfull, that it is to be vnderstood of a priuate occasion, as many are wont to spring betweene a King and his Nobles: as in our age betweene Borbonius and king Francis: the Guise and Henry; Orange and Philip, for each of them, both Guelfo and Rodolphus pretended a publike occasion, that is to say, the furious behauiour of Henricus, and also for that hee was excommunicate and deposed from his kingdome by the Pope, as writeth Albert Schafnaburgensis Dereb German., and so they couered priuate hatred as Rebels vse to doe, with a publique pretence. But touching the Sonne our Bishop Frisingensis writeth in this manner I [...]b. 7 Ch [...]on. cap. 8.. Afterward againe in the yeere following, when the Emperour celebrated the Natiuitie of the Lord at Moguntia, Henry his sonne enters into rebellion against his Father in the parts of Noricum by the counsell of Theobald a Marques, and Berengarius an Earle, vnder the colour of Religion, because his Father was excommunicate by the Bishop of Rome: and hauing drawen to his partie certaine great Personages out of the East part of France, Alemania, and Baioaria, he enters into Saxonie, a country and Nation easily to bee animated against their King. Heere let the Reader obserue two things. One that this Author, a man notable for knowledge and [Page] pietie, calleth this insurrection of Henry the sonne, against Henry the Father, a Rebellion: the other, that both heere and in other places, he euer calls Henry the Father, King and Emperour, although he had been now about fiue and twentie yeeres excommunicate and depriued of his Kingdome by the Popes sentence: and first Rodolphus, and then [...], were set into his place by the Pope and the Rebels, whereby he shewes sufficiently that hee thinkes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Kings, or to determine of their temporall gouernment: and therfore that the Decree of Gregorie was neither iust nor lawfull; otherwise neither Henry could haue been called King, nor his aduersaties Rebels without iniurie to the Bishop of Rome.

There is also another place of the same Authors, wherin he [...] the same more plainly, that is, that the Pope by that excommunication and abdication hath taken no right of his Kingdome from Henry, for after that he had related that [...], who was sonne in law to Rodol [...]us, (whom as hath been said, the Pope had created King) hauing killed his Father in law, and vsurped the Dukedome of Sw [...]uia, as granted to him by his Father in law, and one the other side that Henrie, (who had been deposed by the Popes sentence had granted the same Dukedome, to a certaine Nobleman of Sweuia, (whose name was Frederike) who forced Bertolphus to conditions of peace, & ad ex [...] Ducaius: he addeth, This Ber [...]ode although in this businesse he yeeldeth both to the Empire and to Iustice, yet he is reported to haue beene a re [...]olute and a valiant man. Behold how he vsing no manner of Circuition affirmes, that both Empire and Iustice stands on his part, against whom the Pope had long before passed the sentence of D [...]position: but not with Rodolphus, being called to the Kingdome by the authoritie of the Pope, with this Epigraphe, now twise related aboue.

Petra dedit Petro &c.

Lastly seeing he seriously saith and teacheth, That Kings [Page] haue none aboue them but God whom they may feare: doth he not euen by this conclusion teach vs, that the Bishop of Rome hath no temporall authoritie, whereby he may dispose in any manner of their kingdomes and gouernments? And surely although there were nothing else, for which that hainous action of Pope Gregorie might be misliked, surely so many lamentable and desastrous euents, so many fatall and wofull accidents, which springing out of that iurisdiction which was then first vsurped and practised by the Pope against the Emperour, afflicted the whole Empire full fiue and 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 See the admonition to the Reader. Apostles themselues intreated with a solemne supplication, in these wordes: Goe too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles, and by your authoritie interpo [...]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 [Page] 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 See the admonition to the Reader. 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 Salu [...]t.. and hath oftentimes armed with cruell and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children, and contrariwise, as wee haue shewed at large other where lib. 6. de reg [...] cap. 4.: One said excellently well, [...]. patris long [...]o [...] 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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 an [...]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 conf [...] [...] 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 [...]orce of the former obiection touching the tolleration of the ancient Fathers. As though, saith he, 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 [...]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 Nur [...]es, & with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee, & shall lick [...] the dust of [...] Esa [...] 49.. that surely is such a to [...], as I do thinke not worth the answering, seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knowes what he saith. For [...]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, begā euen with [Page] 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 Vinedresser, 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 Saph [...]ra Act. 5.. 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? Tract. 17. in [...]an. 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 Lib 5. ca. 6. de Regno. 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 Aduersariorum sententia [...] antiquitati ec [...]lesiastic [...] con-tradic [...]t. 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 [Page] 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 b [...]. [...] 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 1. N [...]m magist atus D de recep qui [...]., 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 [Page] 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, Can. pat [...]t. can al [...]orum [...] q. 3. therefore where he listeth he may depriue euery man of his kingdome and giue it to another.

The Proposition in this argument, is the very opinion of the aduersaries: and the Assumption is without controuersie amongst all Catholikes: for none but an Heretike will deny that the charge of soules belonges to the successour of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly, the conclusion followes necessarily of the premisses because if the Pope wil transferre any kingdome from one to another, he may say that he iudgeth it necessary for the health of soules, and [Page] none [...] of has iudgement as hath beene said. And [...] his pleasure whether he will take from [...] but that all Kings [...] th [...] kingdomes, which [...] at the [...] Behold in how [...] Christia [...] Kings and Princes should stand, [...] [...], that the Pope hath power indirectly to [...] all temp [...]aliti [...]s of Christians, who shall mea [...] t [...]at [...] owne pleasure and iudgement, that [...] for him, if he be displeased, then to [...] his indirect power, so o [...]t [...] priuate [...], o [...] the ambi [...] [...] forward, or euen [...] and contemned, [...]. Where of [...]face [...] haue giuen [...] all of i [...]any, they [...] to [...] mighty [...] of the po [...]tifi [...] [...] and [...] one after another, as [...] I omit this reason taken [...] a [...]ought it [...] for that [...] that [...] kingdoms but an execution [...] to th [...]m by the Pope, [...]t i [...] it strange against the [...] and all the ab [...]tto [...], of the indirect power.

[...] all [...] all [...] and iurisdiction is [...] by the law of God o [...] of Man, and also he [...] o [...] holdeth any th [...]ng, i [...] he hold by nei [...] [...] of these, holdeth wrongfull [...], as Augustire reasoneth [...] against the D [...]atists. Therefore it cannot be [Page] 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 [Page] nothing, shall carie the businesse I q [...] accusar [...] [...]. l. [...] [...] de prob. cap. 1. de probat.. 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 In P [...]l [...]a contra Hen 3 [...]ra Rege [...].. 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 See the admonition to the Reader. 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.

[Page] 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 pr [...] 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, [Page] 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 Gene [...]rardes In Psal. 2. wordes) by both the Magistra [...]tes, Ecclesiastike and [...] the Church is maintained, defended, and flourisheth: which that she might be protected and preserued tyght and vpright. [...] [...].

—alterius sic

[...] po [...]t.

Altera p [...]it opemres, & coniurat ami [...].

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 [...] [Page] 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 Dried [...] to this purpose [...]b. 2. de libe [...]. Ecclesia [...]. [...]ap. 2.. 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 Ca [...]. 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 [...]esigned [...] diuers offices, so as the Emperour [...]ouerns [...] persons, for a peaceable Society in this world, and the Pope rules spiritual to the aduancement [Page] of Christian faith and charitie.

But Bellarmine also himselfe. Marke, quoth he, that the Sunne and the [...] 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, sub [...]teth al [...]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, [Page] 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 1. ad Titu:. 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, In relect. cap. no [...]t num 92. de. [...]. 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 [Page] 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 [...] 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 qu [...]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 [Page] 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: [Page] or h [...]th do [...]t indirectly, as vpon other Kings, who are [...] subiect to him by any Ch [...]ntelar law, it so be a like [...] both the iudgements: And this is suffi [...] argument. No, let vs examine what [...].

[...] is plain euen [...] [...]thered thereof by the Au [...] [...]temporall power is subiect to [...] to prooue a matter by demon [...] bring [...]th soo [...]th a sig [...]e, and that surely [...] which many times de [...]ues vs by a [...] [...]herefore I answer to the argument by de [...]. For although it be true that a tem [...] [...]und to change the manner of his go [...] [...]tuall good be [...]dred thereby [...]et is it [...] by a necessary consequence, that the [...] to the Sp [...]tuall: but this onel [...], that a [...]tuall good is mor [...] excellent then a temporall good, the which is true and we confesse it. For if one be more [...]orthy then another, it doth not follow by and by that the lesse worthy depends of the more worthy, and is [...]strate and su [...]ted to it: for they may [...]all out to be comprehended [...] kinds or order [...] so [...]iuers by nature, that neither can depend of other, or be h [...]ld by any bond of subiection. Therefore we grant that a Pr [...]ce in the case prop [...]nded ought to change the [...]orm of C [...]uill administ [...]at [...] to [...]o it by the church or by the h [...]a [...] thereof and chiefe Pastor in earth, which is the Pope; but o [...]l [...] [...] Sp [...]tuall punishment, the horror whereo [...] to a good man [...] gree [...]ous then all the pu [...] by the testi [...]o [...]e of a [...] it hath with [...] but not by temporall punishment, [...] as is [...] of Kingdome, seeing a [...] poralti [...], Therefore as much a [...] he is to be left to the diuine iudgement a [...]. Hence [...]dorus whose opinion [Page] is registred amongst the Canons, 23 q [...] Whether the peace and di [...]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 s [...]ord onely, not with the visible and temporall sword al [...] Cap 9. 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 [Page] 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 Pag. 114. 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 In lib. 5 de Cle [...]ic [...] Cap. 18. 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 [Page] 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, Lib 4 Epist. 75. 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 3. Reg cap 1. 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 Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. that Salomon did this not as a King, but as a Prophet and an executioner [Page] 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 en [...]o [...]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, vtim [...]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 [Page] 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 Eod. lib. 17. cap. 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 Extant in Cod. et Decret at (que) in lust eccles.. 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 I. incous. 16 D [...]de minor. l. 1 de constit. princi..

And with these agree, euen those things, which Bellarmine himselfe doth most rightly [...] against the Canonists. [Page] 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 [...]. 3 §. Sitamen. [...]at. 6.. 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 [...] & 2. Cod. Theod. de Epist. & Cler [...]. li. 16.; 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 ras [...]nesse of certaine Clerikes, who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the [Page] courtesie and gift of secular Princes, because the same godly Princes doth tearme those exemptions Priuiledges; for thus he: By the faction of hereticall persons we finde, that the Clerikes of the Catholike Church, are so vexed, that they are oppressed with certaine Nominations or Susceptions, which the common custome requireth against the priuiledges granted to them. Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the yeere thirtie sixe from the granting of the first priuiledge, Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls, granted an other priuiledge to the Bishops, that they should not bee accused of any Crimes before seculr Iudges I mansu [...]tudinis 12. cod. tit. 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 [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 Lib. 2 de Roman. Pontif. cap. 29. 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 [Page] 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: 1. Si vnus 27. § ante omnia. D. depist. 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 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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 Eph. 6. [...]. 3.. 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 [Page] either be emancipated or giuen into adoption before himselfe Lib 3. De adopt.. 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 [...]. lib. 24. val Matth. 2. ca 2. [...] apoth Rom Cell. lib 2. ca. 2..

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. Rom. 13.

To this place belongs that ancient glosse, which the Cardinall of Cusa lib 3. de concord. cathol. ca. 3. 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 Cap. 4. Germane Emperors: from whence the electors, saith [Page] 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 [Page] 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. 1. ad Corin. 5. 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 [Page] of their owne accord, did confer and offer to the Church, when he saith, Act. 5. 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 Luk 21.. 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 [Page] 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 1. Cor. 1., 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 Psal. 117.. S. Bernard writeth excellently, (as hee doth alwaies,) to Eugenius the Pope Lib. 4. c. 3.: 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 [Page] 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 [...]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.

[Page] 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 Su. c. 14., as by the state of the Church, being established vnder heathen and infidell Princes Sum hoc Capite.. 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 [Page] 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 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 [Page] 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. Cap. proximo sum. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Can. non pila. can. conuentor. 23. q 8. 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 [Page] 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 Iud. cap. pen. & [...]. [...].. 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 [...], for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus; forced the Queene to depart out of Illiricum, and to pay a great yeerely tribute [...]. 2.. Will any man heere say, that the [...]e [...]ia [...]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.

[Page]

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 Lib. 4. c. 3. 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: [Page] 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. Imperium D. de [...] Pan [...]. ca. 13. ad Rom. 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 c 23 q [...]. in [...]. 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 prosequ [...]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, [...]. 13. 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, [...]b 10 comment in Euan. Luca 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.

[Page] Besides we must vnderstand, that that place of the Gospell, touching two swords, which they obiect vnto vs, is not [...] Lut. 22. 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 [...] Mare. 16. 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. Lut. 2. 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 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. Isaia 53. Thus he, To which I will at last adioyne, that Bellarmine himselfe, in the bookes, de summo Pontifice, Lib. 5. cap. 3. 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 [Page] 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 c [...]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 [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 committe [...]. Ergo, It belongs to the Pope to iudge, that a King is to be [...] not to be [...]epo [...]ed. And he labours to prooue th [...] 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 infidel [...], who went about to destroy the Church of God; [...] propter con [...]cientiam; that is, not [...] that they wanted strength to enforce [...]icked [...] that they iudged that they might not by the law o [...] God. But becau [...] we haue in our books against the [...] and also a [...]oue in this booke, we haue [...] [...] hurtfull and mischieuous er [...], there is no cause wh [...] we should dwell any long [...] the fa [...]ood thereof. It only remaineth that [...] sh [...]w the faults of the arguments, wherewith [...] to prooue his false proposition.

I [...] first argument he f [...]tches out of Deuteron [...]mie; where the people is forbidden to chuse a King, which is not [...] brethren, that is, who is not a Iew, least he d [...]aw them to idolatry: therefore also Christians, are forbidden to [...] one that is no christian. Grant all this be true. Then [...] these parts thus granted he proceeds in this [...] [Page] Againe: It is equally dangerous and hurtfull to chuse one that is not a Christian, & not to depose a non Christian: as it is known. Ergo, Christians are bound not to suffer euer them a King not Christian, if he endeuour to turne the people from the [...]au [...].

I answer, that this consequence is not good, and that by such vitious and deceitfull manner of arguing many are turned from the truth. Now the fallacy is in this, that he determines and assumes for certaine that there is law, wheresoeuer the same hurt or danger is; which I shall prooue presently to be most false. Neither is it like that, which the [...] deliuer, v [...] [...]adem ratio est, [...]us idem esse [...]. I ill [...]d 32 D ad lig. Aquil.. Therefore we must obserue, that he doth not sa [...]e, [...] demp [...]att esse, eligere non Christianum & non deponere non Christianum: that it is as faulty or vnlawfull, &c. which if he had said I had denied the antecedent: but he saith [...] esse that it is as hurtful and dangerous &c. whence he doth falsly gather that Christians are [...]ound not to suffer ouer them a King that is no Christian. For it followeth not, where the same harme and danger is, that the same power to doe any thing is granted to the party who is [...] or endangered, nor where equall harme and danger is, there also is equall sinne or merit; and this may be easily prooued by examples. He that re [...] ounds, or is spoiled of his goods, suffers the same danger and mischeefe, whether it be by force from a robber, or a wandring souldier, or that he be oppressed of a Magistrate by an vniust sentence. But the same remedy is not prouided against both these, to run vpon a robber, and to kill him, in defense of himselfe and his goods, it is very lawfull I. vt vim D. de iust. & tur. c. 2. de homicid. L. 2. C. quando lice at vnu [...]i (que)., reseruing as they say, the moderation of the defensiue resistance, that it be without blame. But it is not likewise lawfull to resist a Magistrate, who according to the power of his iurisdiction had passed an vniust sentence against him, by reason of the authority which iudgements and matters iudged vse to haue. Marke I pray you, although in both respects, there be the like harme and losse [Page] to him that is spoiled, yet the same law is not of force in both places. Againe it is a matter of the same danger and hurt, deliberately to enter into a ship, whose kee [...]e you know to be [...]aken and hath sprung a leake: and to enter into that, which you take to be sound, when as indeed she is rotten and full of leakes. I say it is a matter equally dangerous not equally vnlawfull. In the first case, you tempt God, and procure to your selfe your owne death: but in the later, it [...] haue vsed all possible diligence, you doe not offend, it ignorantly you commit your selfe to such a ship. So it is a matter of the same danger and hurt, to mary a woman for her wealth or beauty, which you know to be [...] an vnquiet, and a [...] disposition: and by chance to light vpon one, which you doe not know to be such a one. And yet he that casts himself into so manifest a danger seemeth greatly to offend, who in the shaping of the course of his life, doth tempt God. But he, that being ignorant of his to tune, and of the moro [...]ty and sharpnesse of the woman, shall mary her, not only committeth nothing against God, but by his daily troubles and miseries, if he beare them with a strong and patient minde, doth please him as it were by a certaine kind of martirdome. I [...]ight produce many examples of this kind, to conuince the captiousnesse of this argument of Bellarmines. Therefore as it followeth not, if he that knowes a woman to be extreamly wicked, and so froward, that there is no hope to hu [...] with her in peace and quietnesse, ought not to take her to wife, (because by that act, he doth cast himselfe into [...] danger) that he also who casually and vnwittingly ha [...]h light of such a one, ought to forsake or refuse her, notwithstanding the bond of matrimony, although it be a matter of the same danger and hurt, if he keepe her. In like manner it followeth not, if Christians be bound not to chuse a King who is no Christian, or an heretike, that they are [...]ound also, not to endure him being now chosen, because many things hinder a businesse which is to be [Page] done, which doe not dissolue the same being done, as we haue other where shewed at large. And this is sufficient to weaken the force of this argument.

CHAP. XXI.

BVt yet I am constrayned to stay heere a little longer, that I may further discouer and represse another errour, which he adioynes as a Complement to his former reason for to confirme that which he said. That Christians are bound not to suffer ouer them a King, that is no Christian, &c. And because he would haue none to doubt of this proposition, because in times past Christians did both tolerat, and honour many Princes, euen because they were Princes, without any scruple of conscience, which were partly Heathen, partly Heretikes, that I say he might preuent with some solution this so strong an obiection and so peremptory against his former positiō, he presently adioyneth these words. Now if Christians in times past did not depose Nero, and Diocl [...]tianus and Iulianus the Apostate, and Valens the Arian, and such like, it was because the Christians wanted temporall strongth. For that otherwise they might iustly haue done it, appeareth by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 6. where hee commands that new Iudges in Temporall causes, should be set ouer the Christians, least the Christians should be enforced to bring their causes, and debate them before a Iudge, that was a persecutor of Christ. For as new Iudges might be appointed, so also might new Princes and Kings haue beene for the same cause if they had had strength sufficient for such an enterprise.

Heere be many things, worthy to be reprehended, and which I doe much maruell, that a man so learned, and trained in authors both sacred and prophane, would euer commit to writing. For first he saith, that the want of strength was the cause, why Christians in times past did not depose Nero, D [...]cle [...]ian, Iulian, Ualens and the like, we haue sufficiently declared to be most false, by cleere and vndoubted [Page] testimonies in our bookes Lib 4 cap 5. & lib. 3. cap. [...]. Deregno, and also aboue in this booke, and will foorth with demonstrate, euen out of the Principles laid and granted by himselfe. Secondly there is nothing more [...]o [...]d nor more vnreasonable, ye [...], that I may speake it without offence of so great a man, nothing more [...] to alledge the authority of S. Paul for to giue grace and cre [...]t to [...] proposition, in whose writing there is not so [...] one word, which without [...] [...]construction and [...]au [...]l can be applied [...] they say or by [...]g [...]e and by interpretation to [...] of such a position. And indeed, that I [...] speake freely▪ they doe with two much liberty of interpretation abuse S. Paul [...] doctrine, who out of that first [...] to the Corinthians, doe collect that it was [...] Christians to depose Ethinke or Heretike Prin [...] other in their places. Indeed the Apo [...] in that place rebuke the Christians, to that they [...] one another with sutes, & had no iudgment among them at all: And also for that they drew one another to the Ben [...]es o [...] Ethnike and infidell Iudges, to whom euery Christian name was hatefull. And yet he did this not that he [...]ould teach them or signifie to them by this [...], that Ethnike Magistrates had no iurisdiction o [...] Christian [...], or that the Christians might by any de [...] bring to passe that Ethnikes should carry no politike do [...] [...] them: But that he might shew, that it was a [...] the religion and profession of a Christian that they who were newly regenerate in Christ, and were called into his fellowship, had [...]ather to maintaine Law [...] and questions before Infidell Iudges, then to pacific and compose their businesse and controuersies begun amongst them, by the iudgement and arbitration of the Brethren, which is, of the Christians.

Therefore the Apostle doth not by this speech disanull the authoritie of the Heathen, neither signifieth that the Christians may make defection from them: but onely [Page] misliketh and reprooueth the peeuishnesse and stiffenesse of certaine Christians, that whereas they had brethren, that is, men of the same religion with them, who being by common co [...]ent appointed A [...]bitratou [...]s, might with a louing and friendly affection iustly and wisely dis [...]eptate and order their causes within their domestike and priuate walles, not being contented [...]ith these, would contentiously appeale to the great s [...]andall of religion, to such Iudges as were both without saith and iustice. Whenc [...] S. Th [...]as vpon that place saith, But it seemeth to bee otherwise, which [...]s said. 1. P [...]t. 1. [...]e ye [...] s [...]biect to euery humane Creature for God, either to the Ki [...]g as the sou [...]raigne, or L [...]utenant [...] [...]t as it were from him, for it appertaines to the a [...]t [...]oritie of t [...] Prince to iu [...]ge of his subiects. Therefore it i [...] against the [...] of God, to f [...]r [...]id that his iu [...]g [...]ment should be [...] I [...]fide [...]l. But we must say, that the Apo [...] [...] but that the [...] being [...]laced vnder [...]fidell Pr [...]ces, may make their app [...]rance before them, if the [...] be un [...]m [...]ned [...]r this were agai [...]st the su [...]i [...]ction, which i [...] due to Pri [...]c [...]s, but [...]e for [...] th [...]m that they should not be [...] [...]ard to runne to the iudgement [...]eates of Infidels. Vpon the selfe same place The [...]deret & Hier [...]me do almost write the selfe same things. The Apostle (saith he) doth not heere forbid the [...]ait [...]ull, liuing vnder vn [...]aithfull Princes, to appeare before th [...]m, when they are summ [...]ned, for this were against the [...]ubiection which is due to Princes, but forbids their [...]astie and voluntarie running to infidell Iudges, in those busine [...] [...] which may be determined by the faithfull.

Therefore the Apostle in that place commands nothing, which may either take away or di [...]inish the iurisdiction and authoritie of infidell Iudges ouer Christians, or any way giue preiudice to the same: [...]ea he could not iustly command any thing against that subiection, since it is of the law of Nature, being confirmed by God his authoritie, as by S. Ambro [...]e his witnesse, the Apostle himselfe teacheth other where Rom. 1 [...].. Therefore this constitution [Page] of Iudges, whereof we speake, did by no meanes exempt Christians, from the subiection and iurisdiction of Ethnike Magistrates, but onely tooke from them the necessitie of appealing to them, when as they should haue Iudges constituted by common consent among themselues, by whose arbitrations the questions that rise among them might be composed. Now indeed these Iudges were no better then Vmpires without authoritie, without power to draw any person before them, exercising onely a voluntarie iurisdiction; and therefore if either a crosse and ouerti [...] a [...]t Christian, or any I thinke had called a Christian before an [...] fidell Iudge: this authoritie of these Christian Iudges had nothing auailed him that was thus called, but that he must needs present himselfe before the heathen be [...]h: nay he were in conscience bound to present himselfe, by reason of the subiection, which we owe our superiours by the law of Nature.

Moreouer if a man doe looke more wishly on that place of the Apostle, he that of serue that in that place the Apostle takes paines to instruct their Christian mindes to Fuangelicall perfection, which is a matter rather of counsell then of precept, seeing he exhorts them that they would rather take wrong and suffer losse, then so to [...]nuase su [...]es among themselues. According to that of our Sauiour. Matth. [...] If any man shall strike the one the right cheeke, hold him thy other, and he that will goe to law with thee, and take away thy coate, let him haue thy cl [...]ake also. And so the Fathers of the Church, Ambrose, Primastus, Theodoret, and all the rest vnderstood that place, for that he saith. Now surely, there is altogether a fault amongst you, that you haue iudgements amongst you, why do you not rather suffer losse? That, vnlesse it be vnderstood of the preseruation of life, or of the most perfect state of life, cannot possibly be admitted, seeing it is a plaine [...]ase amongst all men, that they doe not offend, who being oppressed with iniuries and contumelies, desire to be releeued and succoured by the Iudge. Therefore S. [Page] Paul in that place, doth like a good father of many children, who worthily rebukes his children, that fall out among themselues, both for that by dissentions and iarrings they violate brotherly loue, as also for that they had not beene more willing, to end and determine the controuersie which did arise among them rather by the aduise of the brethren, then wrap them in the noise and tumults of Iudiciall courtes, and decide them by the verdict of strangers.

Seeing these thing, are thus, good God what a miserable blindnesse and ignorance is this, or indeed a wilful craft and cunning, to seeke to gather out of those words of Paul, that it had beene lawfull for the Christians to depose all I thinke Emperours or Magistrates, if they had had strength and power to effect the same? Seeing especially that the Apostle doth other where command all Christians of necessity to be subiect to those Ethnike powers non solum propter [...]am, least if they should practise defection, they should suffer punishment from these Magistrates whose displeasure the had incurred: sed etiam propter conscientiam, for because they could not with a sound and safe conscience withdraw themselues from their obedience and subiection, which is the ordinance of God, or resist and Rom 13. withstand the same. For this is of necessity to be subiect for conscience sake, or propter Deum, for God as S. Peter commandeth. 1. Peter 2. Moreouer the first Christians after the Apostles, did ingenuously confesse, that the Emperour, although hee were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith, yet was ordained of God, and was inferour to God alone. Tertull ad Scapul & in Apologet. Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates, is it not plaine that they contained themselues from all practise of rebellion and defection, not because they could not, but because they lawfully might not? Or if the Emperour were inferiour to God only, and the lesse could not depose the greater, how could the Christian subiects depose him? What doth either the [Page] Apostle fight with himselfe, or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another? Or euen those ancient fathers, who succeeded the Apostles, were they ignorant of their whole [...]g [...]t and [...]ledge against I [...]nded or Heret [...]k [...] Kings and M [...]g [...]tra [...] [...] For that they had force and strength equall [...] and more then fuil [...]t to e [...]ecute an explo [...]t against them we haue in another place demonstrated very [...]. largely.

There [...]ore it is [...]dent by these, that the authoritie of the Apostle Pa [...] doth nothing app [...]ta [...] to the former proposition of Bellar [...]e touching the deposing of Kings: and therefore that hee committed a great error, that in a matter so serious, and of so great moment, hee hath de [...]ded the Reader with a false shado [...] of the Apostle, authoritie. If the constitution or creation of Iudges made by the Christians at the Apo [...]l [...] direction, had taken a [...]a [...] the authoritie, po [...]er, and [...]nst [...]tion of the msidell Iudges, or in a [...] pa [...]hadal [...]ga [...]d the same, or had exempted Christians from their subie [...]n, there could nothing haue been stronger th [...] [...]unes argument, nothing more tr [...] th [...]n [...]s op [...]. But because that constitution of Iudge [...], d [...] no more pr [...]i [...]dice [...]eath [...] I [...]diction, the [...] the ch [...]sing of Pe [...]e Kings at [...]uetide, or the creation of Princes and Iudges by the [...]anto [...] youth in the [...], is pr [...]iud [...]c [...]all to the true Kings and Magistrate [...], it i [...] certaine that no Argument for his opinion can be dra [...] from thence.

But because we prosecute the seuerall points in this question, I must ad [...]tise you, that S. Thomas is in some places [...]. of that opinion, that he thinkes that the right of the Lordship and Honor of Ethn [...]ke Princes may iustly be taken away; by the [...]tence or ordination of the Church, hauing the authoritie of God as he saith. S. Thomas his authoritie is of great force with me, but not so great, as that I esteeme all his disputations for Canon [...]call Scripture, or that it should ouercome either reason or law. Whose ghost [Page] I honour, and admire his doctrine. But yet there is no reason, why any man should be mooued with that opinion of his, both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authoritie, for his opinion: and also, because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth. 1. he is plaine of the contrarie opinion: lastly because hee hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him, and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrarie. And the reason which he brings, because that infidels by the desert of their infidelitie doe deserue to loose their power vpon the faithfull, who are translated into the sonnes of God. An ill reason and vnworthy so great a man: as though if any man deserue to be depriued of o [...]ce, benefice, dignitie, authoritie or any other right whatsoeuer which he possesleth, may therefore presently be spoiled by another, rather then by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same, or by another, that hath expresse commandement and authoritie from him. Who knoweth not, that the Chancellor, Constable and other officers made by the King, doe deserue to loose their place, if in any thing they abuse their office? but yet notwithstanding no man can take it from them, so long a [...] the Prince on whom onely they doe depend, [...]u [...]ereth them to execute their once. In like manner infidell Princes, although by the desert of [...] [...]fidelitie they deserue to [...] their authoritie: yet because they are constituted by God, and are inferiour to him alone, they cannot he dispossessed of their authoritie, and deposed but by God himselfe. And indeed the same Thomas, in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul, aboue recited in this Chapter, sheweth plainly enough, that the Church hath not that authoritie, whereby shee may depose [...]thinkes, for he saith, it is against the law of God, to forbid that the subiects shall not abide the iudgement of infidell Princes. Now it is sure, that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God, further to take from infidell Princes, the right of Lordship [Page] and Dignitie, is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his iudgement. Therefore the Church hath not that power. And let any man, who will, peruse all Stories, he shall finde no where, that euer the Church assumed to her selfe that authoritie, to iudge Princes infidell or heathen. Neither did she onely forbeare for scandall, as Thomas thinketh in that place: but for want of rightfull power, because shee was not Iudge of the vnfaithfull, according to that of the Apostle, 1. Cor 5. What haue I to doe to iudge them who are without: and also because Princes appointed by God, haue God onely Iudge ouer them, by whom only they may be deposed. Neither is it to the matter, that Paul, when he commands Christian seruants to exhibite all honor to their Masters being Infidels, addeth that only, Least the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed: for he said not that, as though for that cause onely, seruants should obey their Masters, but that especially for that cause they should doe it: and therefore he expressed the greatest mischiefe, which could arise thereof, that he might deferre seruants from the contempt of their Masters, to wit, the publike scandall of the whole Church of God, and of Christian doctrine. Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words, that seruants may lawfully withdraw themselues from the yoke of seruice against their Masters will, if they might doe it without scandall to the Church, for they should not commit flat [...] a [...]cilla 60 D de f [...]rt l 1. [...] fugit. theft in their owne persons, by the law of Nations: But he would shew that they did not onely sinne, which in other places he plainly teacheth Rom. 13. ad Philip 6. Colos [...]. 3., but also draw a publike scandall vpon the whole Church, which is farre more grieuous and hurtfull then a particular mans fault, and aboue all things to be auoided.

Therefore now it remaineth, that according to my promise, I make proofe, that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authoritie to depose heathen Kings and Princes, is false, euen out of the Prin [...] [...] [Page] and granted by himselfe. The matter is plaine, and easie to be done, for in his second booke De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth Cap. 29. that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subiect to heathen Princes, in all Ciuill causes, as other men, his words are these: I answere first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar, because indeed hee was his Iudge, although not of right, for so doth Iohn de Turrecremata answere: lib. 2. cap. 96. summae de Ecclesia. Secondly, it may be said and better, with Albert Pighius lib. 5. Hierar. Ecclesi. cap. 7. that there is a difference betweene Heathen and Christian Princes: for when the Princes were heathen, the Bishop was not their Iudge, but cleane contrarie, he was subiect to them in all ciuill Causes, no lesse then other men, for it is plaine that the Bishop was not Iudge of them: because he is not a Iudge but of the faithfull 1. Cor. 6. What haue I to doe, to iudge of them which are without. And that of the contrarie he is ciuilly subiect to them, both of right and indeed, as it is plaine. For the Christian law depriueth no man of his right and dominion, Therefore euen as before the law of Christ men were subiect to Emperours and to Kings: so also after. Wherefore Peter and Paul euery where exhort the faithfull, to be subiect to Princes, as appeareth, ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. & 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeale to Caesar, and acknowledged him his Iudge, when hee was accused of the sedition and tumult, which was raised amongst the people. Thus he, whereby it is plaine, that not onely want of strength was the reason, why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes, but also, because all law both diuine and humane was against such an action, and in the same booke and Chapter, he teacheth more openly, when hee saith that to iudge, punish, depose, belonged onely to a superiour, which is most true, and without all controuersie is confirmed by the common iudgement of men.

And now by these most certaine Principles set downe and granted by him, euery one that hath any skill in reasoning, may gather that the Christians, although they [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] were mightie both in numbers and strength, could not by right depose Nero, Diocletian, and other heathen and wicked Princes, and that is concluded by this strong and vnanswerable demonstration.

Subiects cannot iudge, punish or depose a Superiour.

But all Christians were subiect to Nero, Diocletian, &c. and other Emperours, and Heather Kings.

Ergo, they could not depose such Emperours or Kings.

The proposition is granted by him: and likewise the Assumption, which doe stand vpon most certaine truth, and the conclusion depends of the Antecedents by a necessary consecution, and is directly contrary to that, which he had said. That Christians in times past might lawfully depos Nero, Diocletian, &c But for that they wanted temporall power & strength they forbare that purpose. Therfore it is false and worthy to be reprehended; For aientia & negantia simul vera esse nequeunt. Heereby also is the falshood of the opinion of S. Thomas euident, which we haue refuted aboue in this Chapter.

CHAP. XXII.

I Said that Bellarmine vsed a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason: which is, That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretike King, whereof I haue already noted the faults of the first. Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what maner of arguments they are, and what strength they haue. Therefore the second argument is this.

To tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King, labouring to draw men to his sect, is to expose religion to manifest danger.

But Christians are not bound neither indeed ought they to tolerate an infidell King with the manifest danger of Religion: for when there is difference and contention between the law of God and the law of Man: it is a matter of Gods law to keepe and obserue the true faith and religion, which [Page] is one onely, and not many: but it is a point of mans law, that we haue this or that King.

To these things I answer, that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these, doe not reason rightly, nor according to arte, but doe propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without forme. For, for that which he assumes:

But Christians are not bound, yea they ought not, without euident danger of religion, to tolerate an Infidell King.

Insteed whereof should haue beene placed in good Logike this Assumption.

But Christians are not bound, yea they ought not to expose religion to euident danger:

That the Conclusion might follow thereof:

Ergo, It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King.

For the assumption which he setteth downe is almost iust the same, with the Proposition that is in question. But to allow him somewhat, let vs grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good forme, and let vs answer to the force of the argument. I say then that his Proposition is false. I say againe, that it is not true that, To tolerate an Heretike or Heathen King, endeuouring to draw men to his sect, is to expose Religion to manifest danger. But it is onely to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretike or Infidell King, to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people: seeing now the people hath no iust and lawful remedy left them to deliuer Religion, but onely Constancy and Patience. And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians, vnlesse we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians, who did without any shrinking or tergiuersation, or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius, Iuliaenus, Valens, and other renouncers of Christian religion, because they came lawfully to the Empire, and whom they might most easily haue remooued [Page] or deposed, they honoured them with all honour, duty and reuerence, euen because they were their Emperours and Kings. These holy fathers then, and worthy Christians in that age, did tolerate Heretike and Infidel Kings, although if we onely looke at their temporall strength, they were furnished with excellent meanes and opportunities to depose them: and yet none that is in his wits will euer say that they exposed Religion to most euident danger, thorow that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy. Now I speake of tolerating that King, who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen, where Christians doe not rule: or who when he was admitted and enstalled into his Gouernment, was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King ouer themselues, no law nor religion enforceing, whom they know to be either an Heretike or an Infidell, is indeed to expose Religion to most euident danger, and in that behalfe, it were a greeuous sinne in the Christians: and they that doe it, are worthy miserably to perish therefore.

Now for that which he deduceth, out of the opposition betweene diuine and humane law, I answer [...]ree [...]ly, that he is much deceiued in this, that in this matter he supposeth there is a crosse encounter and conflict betweene the law of God and the law of man. For they are not repugnant.

To keepe faith and Religion, and to tolerate an Infidell or Heretike King.

Neither is the one by diuine law, the other by humane, as he imagineth: But they be two Precept [...] of Gods law.

1. To worship and serue God with true Religion.

2. To obey and serue the King.

Which may and ought to be kept and fulfilled together, as the Iesuites themselues affirme. Contra Ar. nau [...]. pag. 69. And we haue proued at large, lib. 3. contra Monarchomacho [...]. Cap. 8. Therefore in this case the subiects not onely may, but also ought, to tolerate such a King, and in the meane time to continue constantly in the true religion, and so to giue to Caesar those things, which are Caesars, and those things which are Gods, to God. [Page] For if, as Bellarmine deliuereth, it be not lawfull for a Counsell Lib 3. de Rom. Pont. c 29. to iudge, punish or depose a Pope indeuouring to disturbe or to destroy the Church of God but onely,

To resist him by not doing that which he commandeth, and hindring that he doe not execute his pleasure.

Why should we not in like manner, and with much more reason, hould the same iudgement of Kings? Seeing that they also, by the testimony of the same Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9 & lib 3. c. 19. Author, are superiour to the People, and haue no iudge in earth: and whereas besides many famous Diumes be of opinion, that an Occumenicall Counsel hath greater authority ouer the Pope, then the people hath ouer the Prince? Because the Church is euer gouerned by the spirit of God, nor doth any thing rashly. And the Pope being often times mooued and tossed with the windes and tempests of sedition enterpriseth many things wickedly, cruelly and vniustly, without counsell and iudgement.

But it is a hard matter to tolerate a wicked King, and to retaine true Religion, will some reply. I grant indeed it is so, but it is not vnpossible. Impossibilitie (I must craue pardon to vse the word) excuseth from the obseruing of the Commandements, but difficultie and hardnesse doth not. But that he saith, That it is of the diuine law to keepe true faith and religion: but of humane law, that we haue this or that King. This surely is all true, but take heed Reader for all this, least you be deceiued. Bellarmine omitted that which was principall, for he ought to haue added:

But where we once haue this or that King, it is of the diuine law, that in Ciuill causes we obey him with all honor and reuerence.

By this adiection which no Catholike can denie, that Argument of his is crusht. For in the maner propounded by him, the law of God and Man doe not concurre, nor fall a crosse one of another, as hee imagineth, (which if it should fall out, it were reason that the humane should [Page] yeeld to the diuine) but in truth there concurre two heads of the Diuine law, the one, to obserue faith and Religion, the other, To honor the King and to obey him in Ciuill matters. Both which may and ought to be fulfilled, By giuing to Caesar, as is said, the things which are Caesars, and which are Gods, to God, as we haue learned out of Bellarmines doctrine in the person of the Pope, endeuouring to destroy the Church.

CHAP. XXIII.

THere remaines the last Argument, which he propounds by way of a subtle and captious question in this manner.

To conclude, why may not a faithfull People, be freed from the yoke of an vnfaithfull King and drawing to Infidelitie, if a belieuing wife bee free from the Obligation of staying with an vnbeleeuing husband: when he will not stay with his Christian wife, without intur [...] to the faith, as he plainly deduceth out of Paul 1. ad Cor. 7. Innoc. 3. Cap. Gaudemus, extra de diuortijs? for the power of the husband ouer the wise is no l [...]sse, then of the King ouer the subiects, but indeed somewhat more.

There is nothing more frequent in the mouthes of all the Monarchomachi, then this Argument: because they doe easily deceiue very many thereby, for it is such a one, as nothing doth mooue more vehemently at the first sight, and being looked into and vnderstood doth vrge more weakely. Therefore I answere to it, that these two points be very diuers and vnlike,

To be deliuered from some mans yoke; and

To be deliuered from the Obligation of remaining with some man.

and therefore, that they are not rightly compounded and compared together, seeing that the husband himselfe, to whom the Obligation of remaining with an other is remitted, [Page] is not by this at all deliuered from her yoke, from whom he departs. Whereof the Church yeelds vs examples euery day, which freeth and absolueth maried Persons, for diuers Causes, for Bed and Boord, as they say, (that is) for conuersation and obligation of Continuance one with the other, the Mariage bond neuer the lesse remaining, which is a Sacrament of Christ and the Church. Wherefore the force of such an Argument drawen from maried persons is nothing, vnlesse he proceed from the Matrimoniall yoke, to the Regall yoke, as if he had said:

Why may not a faithfull People be freed from the yoke of a King faithlesse, and drawing others to Infidelitie, if a belieuing wife be free from the yoke of an vnbelieuing husband.

Now if it please the Reuerend Bellarmine to turne that his Argument into this, that it may haue more moment and weight, then I will answere the same after an other manner. And thus. That either he speakes of those maried persons who contracted Mariage, when they both were beleeuers, and one of them fell into heresie or infidelitie afterwards: or of heathen and infidell Couples, of whom the one conuerted to the faith, the other continuing obstinately in his Pagan superstition. If he vnderstand his argument of the former, he doth slander his Author Innocentius, who speakes neuer a word of such a Matrimonie in the said Cap. Gandemus: and besides it should bee false, which he obtrudes to vs for an argument, that the beleeuing husband is free from the yoke of his vnbeleeuing wife, when he will not continue with his Christian wife, without iniurie to the faith, as the same Innocentius expresly teacheth, in cap. Quanto. §. si verò. extra de Diuort.

But if saith he, one of the beleeuing maried persons, either fall into Heresie, or passe ouer into the error of Gentilitie, we doe not thinke that in this case the partie that is left, may flie to any second mariage, while the other liues, [Page] although in this case the Contumelie seemeth the greater which is offered to the Creator.

And againe the same Innocentius in Cap. exparte extra, De conuers. coningat. rescribeth to the same purpose: That Matrimonie contracted between lawfull persons, and consummate by carnall Copulation,

In no case can be dissolued, although one of the beleeuers, between whom this Mariage is ratified, should prooue an Heretike, and would not continue with the other, without Contumslie to the Creator.

Behold the argument drawen from maried Persons, doth not onely not strengthen these mens Opinion, but also weakneth, and euen oppugneth the same, as if a man should in this manner propound the argument [...] by way of interrogation.

Why should a beleeuing People be freed from the yoke of a King vnbeleeuing or hereticall, endeuouring to draw his 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.

[Page] 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 This is according to Cardi. Bellar. own doctrine in his Lib. 1. de matrimoni. cap. 12. 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 Coni [...]giis, and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs 28. q. 1. C [...]n. 8 & 9..

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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. 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: [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] the matter, nor that neither which followeth in the same place. Besides saith he, the Church should grieuously erre, if she should admit any King which would with impunitie cherish euery manner of sect, and defend heretikes, and ouerthrow Religion. This is most true: But as I said, it belongs nothing to the purpose, for now the question is not of that matter: but of the temporall power of the Church, or of the Pope, who is the substitute head thereof vnder Christ: I meane, whether he haue that power, whereby he may chastise with temporall punishments Kings and Princes duely receiued, if after they shall breake the faith, and forsake the dutie, vndertaken by them in the lauer of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proued or disprooued by these correllaries and additions, and for this cause we passe them ouer.

CHAP. XXV.

THe fift and last reason is drawen, from his Pastorall charge and office: in these wordes.

When it was said to Peter, Feed my sheepe, Iohn the last, all the power was giuen him, which was necessarie to maintaine the flocke.

But a shepheard hath a threefold charge, one about Wolues, that hee driue them away by all meanes he can: the other about the Rammes, that he may shut them vp, if they hurt the flocke with their hornes: the third about the rest of the sheepe, that he giue euery one conuenient food: Ergo, The Pope hath this triple charge.

Out of this principle and foundation are drawen three strong arguments as he surmiseth. But not to goe farre, first I answer to this very fundamentall proposition: that it is all true, and maketh for me, and that the very contrarie of that which he affirmes may very handsomely be gathered from thence, I say, gathered, that the Pope hath no temporall power at all, or may exercise any vpon Christian Princes, as he is the Vicar of Christ, and successor [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. ca. 29., 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 [Page] 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: 1. Corin. 4. 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 produce wonderfull effects, as euen at this day sometimes, he vpon the like [Page] occasion doth produce, among people which be newly won to Christ.

CHAP. XXVI.

SEeing these matters stand thus, the way is made more easie for vs to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation, being now already opened by vs, and retorted backe vpon himselfe, for they fall to ground, partly thorow their owne fault and weaknesse, and partly because they are not wel set vpon the foundation, whereon they are built. For first out of that, that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Woolues, that be may driue them away by any meane he can, he reasoneth in this manner.

Woolues which destroy the Church of God are Heretikes:

Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolfe, that is, of a Christian become an Heretike, the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication, and also command the People, that they doe not follow him, and therefore may depriue him of his gouernment ouer his subiects.

But he is deceiued or doth deceiue vs, by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion. For in that he saith, that the Pastor of the Church may driue away an Heretike Prince by excommunication, that is very true, and is deriued out of that principle by a necessary consecution. But that he may onely, marry that he ought not to do it, but at such times when as he may cōmodiously do it, without scandall and hurt to the Church, as I haue dedeclared before Cap. 9.. For where there is danger least the peace of the Church may be dissolued, and least The member of Christ be torne in peeces by sacrilegious schismes. the seuere mercy of the diuine discipline is necessary (that is to say, is wholy to be left to the iudgement and punishment of God) for Counsell of separation, (that is of excommunication) are both vaine, and hurtfull and Sacrilegious, because they become both [Page] impious and preud, and doe more disturbe the weake good ones, then correct the s [...]urdy ill ones.

[...]. This is the doctrine of S. Angustine, approoued by the common voice of the Church, whereby it is euident, how ras [...]ly and vnwisely, certaine Popes, haue separated from the Church by excommunication, most mighty Emperours and Kings, with the great scandall of the whole world, and dissolution of the peace of the Church, whom it had beene farre better to haue tolerated, and to haue discouered their faults onely, and with mourning to haue bewailed them in the Church.

For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept, and for the saluation of the weake brethren, and such as now were fed onely with milke, least the members of the body of Christ should be torne in peeces, by sacrilegious schismes

[...]

.

Therefore the Popes might doe this, but they ought not. Non omne quod licet, honestum est. Very well saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 6. & 10., omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt. Therefore the first part of the conclusion is true, that the Pastor of the Church, may driue away heretike Princes by excommunication.

But that which followeth, (and withall command the people, that they follow him not) hath two eares to hold by, as I may say with Epictetus, the one sound, the other broken. I meane a twofold vnderstanding, the one true, the other faulty. For if he speake in this sense, that it is the duty of the Pope, to command the subiects, that they follow not an heretike Prince in his heresie, that they run not with him in his madnesse, nor admit and swallow downe his damnable errors; for that they suffer not themselues, to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true, and is deriued very truly out of the same principle and fountaine, and this is the best sense of those words. For there is nothing so conuenient and comely for the pontificall dignity, and the whole order Ecclesiastike, nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people, as that according to the patterne of the ancient fathers of [Page] the Church, the principall Bishop himselfe first, and the rest of his brethren, all of them, should preach the word, should be instant in season, and out of season, conuince, intreat, rebuke, in all patience and doctrine .2 Timoth. 4.. That like Faithfull witnesses and good seruants whom the Lord hath set ouer his family, they may so worke both by word and example, that the people follow not the errors of their King, nor either dissemble, nor forsake the Catholike faith, thorow any either threatnings or allurements of the King, which because most of them either do not all at this day, or at the least much more slackly then they ought, and that duty, which it becomes them to performe themselues, they put ouer to certaine begging Friers: what maruell is it if many in our age, haue been caried away as it were with a whirle wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds, into the toiles of the diuell. This, as I haue said, is the best sense: But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speake in this sense, both the cause, which he hath in hand, and this clause following, Ac proinde prinare eum dominio in subditos, doth plainly declare. Therefore he giues vs the broken care of the pot, I meane the corrupt, and the very worst sense of those words: forsooth, that the pastor of the Church may command the subiect, that they execute no commandement of such a Prince, and that by any meanes they yeeld him no reuerence, obedience, honor, in those matters which belong euen to a temporall and ciuill authority. And therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects. But this is false, and flat contrary to the law of God, and precepts of the Apostles. Feare the Lord, my sonne, and the King Prou. 24.: Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and powers, to obey their commandement Tit. 3.. Be subiect to euery creature for God, or to the King as soueraigne, feare God honor the King, and diuers of that kind, which things seeing they be spoken of wicked Kings and persecutors of the [...] 1. Pet. 2. Church, (for at that time no other ruled in the world,) they can not but belong to the worst and vnworthiest kind of Kings. Therefore this is that which I said before, that [Page] either he deceiues of purpose, or is deceiued, by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion. For it is true, that a Pastor of the Church, may driue away an heretike Prince by excommunication: but it is false that he may depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects. For obedience due to Kings and all superiors, is both by [...] of nature and of God: how then can the Pope by The Pope [...] God. any meane dispense with people against the same?

For they that with more diligence, and exact care doe search the scriptures, doe obserue a too fold kind of the precepts of Paul: one is of those, by which he publisheth the law of God, which he was sent to preach, and doth both propound, and expound the will of God, comprehended in the old and new law. Of which precepts almost infinit his Epistles are full, wherein are these also which he deliuers touching obedience and reuerence to be giuen to Kings and Princes. And the other kind is of those things, which doe not depend of the law of nature or the expresse word of God, but which the Apostle himselfe of his proper authority ordaineth by humane wisedome assisted by the grace of God, for the ordering and setling of the worship of God, as that a Bigamus or a quarreller, be not admitted to a Bishopricke 1. Timoth. 5., that a widow vnder the age of 60. yeeres, be not chosen to the office of Deaconesse, and the like. And between these commandements the difference is, that in those which be of the latter kind, the Pope may dispense for some cause: For he hath no lesse authority, then the Apostle himselfe, in the disposition and ordination of the Church: because the whole Church is committed to him, as to the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter, and because he is not bound to the lawes of his predecessors. But in those matters which belong to the former kind, he hath no power at all to dispense I [...]an. de turre [...]. lector. dist. 34., because Non est discipulus [...]per Magistrum, ne (que) seruus supra Dominum Math. 10.. The inferior may not breake the law of his superior: or qualifie the same to pleasure any. For which cause Speculator doth affirme that the Pope can not absolue [Page] any man from a lawfull oath, because the obligation of keeping an oath and performing it to God, is both by the law of nature, and of God: And others deny that the Pope can dispense with any witnesse, that he may be beleeued vnsworne in a iudgement Hi [...]polyt de Marsil. sing. 214.. And Innocentius III. Pope in his rescript witnesseth, that the Pope can not grant licence to a Monke, that either he may haue the property of any goods, or haue a wife Cap cum ad monasterium. de stat. monachor..

I am not ignorant, with what a far fetcht and trifling explication, certaine Canonists interpreters, who submit all things to the power of the Pope, doe bend and wrest from the proper and natiue signification of the words, that same place of Innocentius, against the iudgement of the best sort of diuines. I am perswaded that it troubled them, which they had hearde, that Constantia the daughter of Rogerius Normannus, a Nunne, was by Clement the III. brought out of the Monastery of Panormus, to be maried to Henry the VI. sonne of Frederike Aenobarbus, of whom the Archbishop of [...]lorence writeth, that when she was fifty [...] Part. 3. tit. 19. cap. 6. yeeres of age, and had long professed a Monasticall religion, that she bare Frederike the II. And that she might take away all suspition of a supposite and foisted birth, that she was openly deliuered in the midle of a street in Panormus, vnder a sheet ouer spread: proclamation being made before, that it should be lawfull for all women to be present, who would come to see that spectacle. Therefore this Frederike was borne saith he, of a Nunne that was now fifty yeeres of age) and because they had heard also that an other Pope had granted a certaine King of Aragon an indulgence, that of a Monke he might bee a maried man. Wherefore these men I meane the Canonists, being beyond all measure addicted to the Popes, being loath to reprehend such manner of actions, least they should doe disgrace to their Popes, who were greedy of honor, and knowing that the words of the prescript set foorth by Innocent the III. did affirme the contrary, they laboured to helpe themselues [Page] by such foolish interpretations, as it irketh me to report in this place, least I should intertaine the reader with toies. But it had been much easier for them, to maintaine the truth and the equity of the rescript, then to practise to make a certaine law of the singular, and vnlawfull actions of Popes, as though they were a rule to liue by Let vs su [...]ter the Popes to giue accompt of their actions to God, neither let vs imitate them in all things. But if any doe propound to vs for examples such actions of theirs, we will answer with Ioan de Tur. Crem, Siluester, Sotus, and other learned men: That these were deeds of Popes, but not decrees, and that the deeds of the Popes, doe not make an article of the Christian saith, and that it is one thing, to commit any thing defacto, mother thing to determine what might be done de [...]ure. I my [...]e and Siluester, haue seen a Pope doe greater matters, with the canda [...] of whole Christianity: and Iohn de Tur. Crem. speaking of vnlawfull dispensations, saith, which if it shall so be at any time done by any Pope being either ignorant in the Scriptures, or blinded with desire of wealth, and mony, which is wont to be offered for such exorbitant dispensations, or that he might please any man, it doth not follow that he might iustly doe those things. The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by Right and Lawes, not by such actions or Examples.

CHAP. XXVII.

THerefore it is the opinion of many learned men that the Pope cannot giue power to a religious Person to breake his vow, that he may haue the property of any goods or a wife, according to the true and simple sence of Innocentius his words. And yet if we will diligently search and consider how much some things differ from other, and with a right iudgement to compare them together in the points wherein they properly agree or differ: there will because to confesse that the Pope hath far lesse power giuen [Page] him to absolue a People from the Religion-of their oath, by which they haue willingly and frankely obleiged their faith to their Prince, then to dissolue the vowes of religious Persons, that although in this last point peraduenture, in some mens opinion, he may seeme to haue power to doe something deplenitudine potestatis, yet in the other we must thinke that he is able to doe iust nothing. Both for that the whole Order Monachall, and other Orders in the Church (as certaine thinke) haue proceeded from humane Constitutions, and the positiue law, ouer whom in that consideration the Pope hath full and all manner of power that may be, as we haue said a little before. But the submission and obedience due to Kings and Princes and all Magistrates and superiours is grounded vpon the law of Nature and of God, being confirmed by both the Testaments. For although it be a matter of humane law and ordination to vse this or that forme of Common-wealth or Gouernment, or to haue this or that Prince; but to reuerence him, whom we had once receiued, and submisly to obey him in all things, which are not contrary to Gods commandements, it is a matter not onely of humane, but also both of Naturall and Diuine institution. And this I thinke, no man will deny. Quipotestati resistit, Deiordination [...] resistit. Whereby it commeth to passe, that that which was free and arbitrary in the beginning, that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subiection is giuen.

As also, because by the vow of religiont, he obligation is taken only to God and the Church, whereof the Pope is the Vicar, or deputed head: and therefore if the Pope, to whom the free procuration and dispensation of all the buisnesses of the Church is permitted, shall as it were in a fashion of renewing a bond, transfuse and change the obligation, taken to the Church, into another Obligation, and also doe interpret and consture that by the promise of a great good, (or performance) there is satisfaction [Page] 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, Rom 3. 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 suerties [...]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 [...]urans non intendebat placere Deo, sed satisfacere proximo Panor [...]. in cap. 1 [...]. 4 de [...].. 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 [Page] 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 I. v [...]t D. quod met. ca l continum. 127 §. [...]um ita D. de verb. ob [...]g..

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 Can. iuramenti. 22. q. 5., as much as concernes keeping faith of the promise. Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more, by reason [Page] 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 [Page] 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

Lib 2. cap 18. de Concil.

he) by the law of God: but the Pope cannot dispence in the law of God.

We ought not to maruell a whit, if the Diuine commandements of fearing and honouring the King, are so deepely impressed in the mindes of many Subiects, that they giueno place to contrary precepts, but rather employ all their care that therebe no obedience at all giuen to the aduerse edicts of the Pope either absolutory or prohibitory: It hath beene oft tould me by great Personages, and those good men, that that diuine Precept of honouring Kings, was of so great force with them, and had taken so deepe roote in their mindes, that they did perswade themselues, that by no Bulles nor contrary Indulgences they could be discharged of the scruple and weight of conscience, and purchase security in the inner man, vz. their soules, that they should not performe and execute so cleere and manifest a commandement of Natuarll and Diuine law, nor yeeld the obedience promised and due to their Prince. And this is the reason, why so few of the Nobility did make defection from Henry the 4. Emperour, none from Phillip the Faire, none also from Lewes the 12. both Kings of France, by reason of the Popes Bulles and Censures, contayning sentence of Deposition. For that we mistake not any way we must vnderstand, that this Plenitude of Apostolicall power, doth onely comprehend that power which the Lord Iesus the sonne of God, when he liued in the world, as a man amongst men, was pleased to haue: and that so farre the Popes represent Christ vnto vs, and is his Vicar, (as we haue shewed aboue out of the doctrine of the most learned Bellarmine) but not that power which he as the sonne of God, and God himselfe, equall with the father had from all eternity, and reserued to the omnipotencie [Page] of his Diuinity. Whereof he saith, All power is giuen me in Heauen and in Earth Math. vlt..

Although I see some play the fooles, or rather the madmen so much, that they athrme, that this Omnipotency is also giuen to the Pope, and to prooue the same doe spin out a notorious argument of their owne vanity, in this maner.

Christ committed to the Pope the deputation of his office, as it is Matth. 16. cap. & 24. q. 1. can. quodcun (que) But all power in Heauen and in Earth was giuen to Christ, Math. 28.

Ergo, The Pope which is his Uicarc hath this power. Extra ae translat. cap. quanto.

So Peter Bertrandus in his additions Adgloss. extrauag. Vnum sanctam. de maior & obed. Who also was so bould as to adde, that which is not far from blasphemy.

For the Lord should not seeme to haue beene wise or discreet (that I may speake it with his reuerence) vnlesse hee had left such a one behinde him, who could doe all these things.

Had this man thinke you any braine? No maruell if Io. Gerson said, that Pusillos, little ones, that is to say, simple and ignorant Christians, being deceiued by such kind of vnskilfull Glos [...]ators and Postillators,

Estimare Papam vnum Deum, qui habet potestatem omnem in Caelo & in Terra.

Surely such grosse flatterers haue spoiled and corrupted the iudgement and liues of many Popes. Neither is it maruell, if Pius the fift the Pope, did tell Martinus Aspilineta, That the Lawyers, (hee meant the Canonists, I thinke) were accustomed to attribute a great deale too much power to the [...] in comm [...]n. can. non [...] Papa 12. q. 2. Pope. Of whom Iohn de Turre cremata,

It is a great wonder

In Ca [...] [...]. 3 q. 2.

(saith he) that Popes doe speake moderately of the power which is giuen them; Euen certaine paltry Doctorculi, without any true ground, will needs by flatterie make them equall with God.

[Page] To which appertaines that which the Cardinall of Cusa writeth, a man very conuersant in all Philosophie humane and diuine, and in storie besides; that certaine writers being willing to exalt the Roman See, worthy of all praise, more a great deale then is expedient or comely for the holy Church, doe ground themselues on apocryphall writings, and so deceiue both Popes and people.

CHAP. XXVIII.

NOw the errour of these men, whereby they giue to the Pope all power both humane and diuine, was bredde partly out of the Apocryphall writings, as hath beene said; partly out of certaine rescripts of Popes, being conceiued more darkly then was cause, and wrong vnderstood, according to the letter, as they say. For, to speake the truth, there is no kinde of people more vnskilfull and ignorant, then these bare and meere Canonists are: which I would not haue vnderstood onely of the knowledge of liberall learning, and of the propertie of speech, for this kind of ignorance is to be borne withall in them, as the common fault of that age wherin they wrote: but euen of the knowledge of that very art which they professe, which they haue clouded and darkened with infinite varieties of distinctions and opinions. For the greatest part of them dwelt only in the Popes Canons and Constitutions, seeking none or very little outward helpe out of diuinitie and other sciences, as they should haue done. Those Rescripts whereof I speake, and which bredde errour in these men, are extant vnder the title of De translatione Episcopi, Ca. 2. 3. & 4. wherein Innocent the third compareth the spirituall mariage, which is contracted betweene the Bishop and the Church, with the carnall mariage, which is betweene a man and a woman: first in that, because as the carnall matrimonie taketh her beginning from the Espousals, and is ratified by mariage, and consummate by commistion of bodies: so also the spirituall [Page] contract of mariage, which is betweene the Bishop and the Church, is vnderstood to haue his beginning in the election, his ratifying in confirmation, and to bee consummate in consecration Secondly in this, that the speech of our Lord and Sauiour in the Gospell, Those whom God hath ioined, let not man separate, is to be vnderstood of both the matrimonies, both carnall and spirituall. Seeing therefore, saith he, the spirituall bond is stronger then the carnall, it ought not to be doubted, but that Almightie God hath reserued only to his iudgement the dissolution of the spirituall mariage which is betweene the Pope and the Church, who hath reserued only to his owne iudgement the dissolution of the carnall mariage, which is betweene the man and the woman: commanding, that whom God hath ioined together, man should not separate. And againe: As the bond of lawfull matrimonie, which is betweene man and wife, cannot bee dissolued by man, the Lord saying in the Gospell, Mat [...]. 19. Those whom God hath ioined, let not man separate: so the spirituall contract of mariage, which is betweene the Pope and the Church, cannot bee dissolued without his authoritie, who is the Successor of Peter, and Vicar of Iesus Christ.

And lest any man should obiect, If God haue reserued to his owne only iudgement the dissolution of both the mariages, both carnall and spirituall, and the spirituall bond is stronger then the carnall: how can it be, that the Pope, who is surely but a man, can dissolue that spirituall bond? Innocentius answereth in that place, that it is done in that regard, because they are separated, not by humane, but by diuine power, who by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome are remooued from the Church, by translation, deposition, or cession. For, quoth he, not man, but God doth separate; whom the Bishop of Rome (who beareth the person not of a pure man, but of the true God in earth) weighing the necessitie or profit of the Church, dissolueth, not by humane, but rather by diuine authoritie. Thus he.

These manner of speeches, and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that errour, that they suppose, [Page] whatsoeuer is done by the Pope, is done by God himselfe, because the words of Innocent seeme to carrie this meaning. I confesse, that there is no place in the whole Pontificiall Law more plaine and open for the words, nor more hard for the sense, that in expounding the same, the wits of all Interpreters doe faile. For what can be spoken more vnderstandatly, plainly, and cleerely then this; That not man, but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolue? Or what followeth more rightly of any thing, then this of that position: Ergo, that the Bishop of Rome may dissolue matrimonie, which is consummate, carnall copula, betweene maried persons? And yet there is nothing more false then this conclusion; and therefore wee must confesse, that that whereof it followeth, is false also, because that which is false can neuer follow of that which is true. Which when Hostiensis had obserued, when (I say) hee had considered the inconsequence of that reason: In summe de elect. n [...]. 25. But that reason, quoth he, sauing his authoritie and reuerence that gaue it, is not sufficient, vnlesse it be otherwise vnderstood: for by that it would follow, that bee might also by his authoritie diuide carnall matrimonie. But for all that, Hostiensis doth not tell vs how this geare ought to bee vnderstood otherwise: neither can hee extricate himselfe from hence, that hee may maintaine his opinion with the preseruation of the truth. For, that he supposeth it might be vnderstood of carnall matrimonie, because, as he saith, before carnall copulation by a common dissent, it may be dissolued, the Popes authoritie comming betweene: arg. cap. 2 & cap. expublico de conuers. coniugat. Surely this interpretation is void of all authoritie and reason: for as touching the rescripts alleged by him, and if there be any such like, they speake of that dissolution of matrimonie which is made by election of religion, and when one of the maried persons entreth into a Monasterie, before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus: in which case there is no neede of the Pope, authoritie to interuene, or any pontificiall [Page] dispensation: but that they are warranted by meere right, and the common helpe of the law, who in that manner doe procure a separation, and breake off matrimonie. Cap. ex parte 14. §. Nos tamen & d. cap. 2. de conuers. contugat. But that a matrimonie ratified, and not yet consummate, may vpon another cause bee dissolued by the authoritie of the Pope, by the common dissent of the parties, that wee are to denie constantly, and that according to the most learned Diuines. For the coniunction and commission of bodies doth neither adde nor take away any thing from the substance and [...], or essence of matrimonie: for the forme of matrimonie consisteth in the declaration of the indiuided coniunction, and consent of mindes, whereby they doe naturally giue themselues one to the other. But the procreation of children, and the bed-fellowship for that cause, is referred not to the constitution of matrimonie, but to the end D Thom. 3. q. 29. art 2. [...]2 [...].. Hence is it said by the heathen, that Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit: Not the fellowship of the bedde, but the consent of the mindes makes mariages [...] D. [...]. can. cum [...] 27 q. 2.. And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions [...]. Otherwise surely that first mariage, which God instituted in Paradise, was not a mariage, vntill the maried persons being cast out from thence, began to prouide for issue: then which what can be more absurd? Moreouer, there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church, no authoritie of Fathers, no decretall Epistle of the Pope, in a word, there is no certaine and solid reason to bee found, which doth except from that sentence of our Sauiour, matrimonie ratified, although not consummate: Quos Deus con [...]unxit, homo ne separet. Nay and hee cannot except, vnlesse it be true, that they, who being contracted, are in the face of the Church ioined in the Sacrament of matrimonie, are not ioined by God.

But there is in this matter, as in others, so great either Ignorance or flatterie of diuers Interpreters of the pontificiall Law, that they are not ashamed to auerre, that not onely matrimonie ratified, but not consummate, (and [Page] that against the common iudgement of the Diuines, but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnall coniunction, may be dissolued by the Pope, aswell as by God himselfe: Uide Couarruuiam de matrim. part. 2. §. 4. vbi id notat & reprebendt. which if it should bee true, how weake the bond of Matrimonie would proue amongst them, who haue grace and power with the Pope, or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes, being blinded with desire of money, J leaue to others to iudge. But there is no cause, why they should thinke that their opinion is strengthned by the former rescripts of Innocentius: seeing the Pope himselfe in an other place expreslie faith, Cap. ex parte 4 § not aute m. de convers. coniugat. that Matrimonie betweene lawfull persons, with words of the present time, Contracted, may in no case bee dissolued, except before that mariage bee consummated by carnall copulation, one of the maried persons passe ouer into religion. For it is not credible, that so learned and godly a Bishop, had either so sodainely forgot himselfe, or wittingly had published opinions so iarring and dissenting one from the other. Therefore there must some other meaning bee sought of these rescripts of Innocentius.

CHAP. XXIX.

NOw, if any aske my opinion, and interpretation of them, I am not afraid to say, as in a matter of this obscurity, that I am at a stand; notwithstanding, that I doe thinke, that the difference in them is [...], that is, that the mind of this good Bishop, and the sense of the wordes doe differ; which oft times fals out in the writings of Law-makers, when as either they doe vse words not so fitte for to expresse their meaning, or do omit some necessary particle, or exception, for to make the constitution plaine, and entire; for otherwise it is not likely, that hee who denieth, that the Pope may graunt licence to a Moncke, that he may haue propertie of goods, or marry a wife; would affirme, that the Pope [Page] may dissolue the Sacrament of mariage, I meane Matrimony ratified and consummate. What is the matter then? I will speake what I thinke: I haue obserued, that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and finenesse tempered his doctrine, that although hee compare each mariage in this, that they are dissolued by the iudgement of God onely: yet, where he speakes of the power of the chiefe Bishop, and Vicar of Iesu Christ, he conioineth them together no more, nor makes mention of carnall matrimony, but onely of spirituall: which not deemed to be separated by man, but by God himselfe; then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolueth the same, the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered, not out of humane, but rather out of diuine authority by translation, deposition or cession; by which silence, and omission of carnall Matrimony, he doth sufficiently implie, that in the manner of separation, it doth differ, and is secretly excepted from the spirituall matrimony: that the Pontificiall authoritie doth not extend to the dissolution of this, viz. the carnall, as if hee had spoken more plainely in this manner. God hath reserued to his own iudgement, the dissolution, as well of the carnall, as of the spirituall matrimony: notwithstanding, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ, and successor of Peter, the necessity or commoditie of the Churches, &c. may dissolue them: which when he doth, not man but God doth separate, whose Person the Pope beareth in earth. Now, why the Pope may dissolue a spirituall mariage, and not a carnall also, the reason is plaine and easie: because the spirituall matrimony of it selfe, and euerie way doth belong to the ordination, gouernement, and oeconomie of the Church, which Christ hath wholy commended to Peter and his successors. And therefore hee must needs seeme to haue granted to them this power to dissolue spirituall mariage, seeing they are not able without it to execute, and discharge the office committed to them I. [...]. D. de iurisd.. And therefore whatsoeuer the Popes [Page] themselues, as Hierarches, that is spirituall Gouernors, L. Si itor. D. deseruit. l [...]. 3 § qui babet. D. de seruit. p [...]aed. rustic. cap. 5. de offic [...]ud. dole. doe dispose and decree of the seuerall matters & persons of the Church, wee must belieue that God doth dispose and decree the same, who hath by name committed this dispensation, and procuration to them.

But carnall matrimony was instituted, not for the ordination of the Church, but onely for procreation of issue Aug. li. 14. de ciuit. Dei. ca. 18. Thom. 2. 2. q. 154. art. 2.: and for that cause it is said to bee of the law of nature, and to be common to all nations and countries: neither doth it in any other respect belong to the notice of the Church, but that it is a See the admonition to the Reader. Sacrament in the new law, containing the my sterie of God and the soule, of Christ and the Church. And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors, the power to dissolue the same. They haue inough to discerne & iudge, if it be a mariage, that they may know if it bee a sacrament. Therefore, although the Pope may auaile very much in the contracting of a mariage, viz by remouing all impediments, which doe arise out of the positiue law, and ecclesiasticall constitutions, and giue order, that it may duly and rightly be contracted, which otherwise were neither lawfull nor firme: yet when as either through the common law permitting, or the Pope dispensing in cases prohibited, it was contracted, hath no power for any cause in the world, to relaxe and dissolue the same. Neither doth it belong to the matter, that in Courts and iudgements Ecclesiasticall, we see often that separation is made of those persons, as haue liued a long time together, vnder the conceit and shew of mariage. For neither the Pope in that case, nor the Iudge delegated by the Popes authority, doth dissolue any matrimony: but by his iudgement declareth, that the matrimony, which indeede was contracted de fasto, or was falsly supposed to be a mariage, was no mariage at all: & enioyneth persons that are not lawfully coupled together, because without sin they may not entertaine that societie together, to depart one from an other, [Page] and to forbeare their accustomed acquaintance. But this is not to dissolue Matrimony, or to separate persons lawfully ioined, as concerning the bond of mariage. Whereby it is euident, that both Innocentius the Interpreter, who afterward was the IIII. Pope of that name, and also Ioh, Andr. (who is called the fountaine and trumpet of the Canon law) hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whome God hath ioined, let no man separate. Of their owne authority say they: but man doth not separate carnall matrimony, when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolue it by the Constitutions of the Pope, but God himselfe, by whose authority those constitutions were made. As though Matrimonie might be dissolued by the constitutions of the Pope? Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder, that mariage may not bee lawfully contracted betweene certaine persons, and make a nullitie in the law, because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions. But to distract and diuide a mariage which is lawfully contracted, & to breake or loose the band, no constitution either of Pope or church can do. Otherwise the Apostle in those words; 1. Cor. 7. The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liueth, but if her husband doe sleepe she is free: I say he did ill to make mention of death onely; if shee may be free by some other meanes, viz. the Popes constitutions, the mariage it selfe being dissolued. And now since these things are thus, it is time to returne from this by-way, into which the vnreasonable flattery, and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawne vs, into that path from whence wee haue digressed.

CHAP. XXX.

IT is now positiuely set downe, and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly iudge of diuine matters, that the Pope cannot make grace to any, of the [Page] naturall and diuine law; or, as we vsually speake now a dayes, cannot dispense against the law of nature, and of God: and grant that that may bee done without guilt, which God and nature haue forbidden; or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expresly commanded to be done; and this not onely the Diuines, but also the Canonists of the better sort, doe very earnestly maintaine. Therefore this is a most grounded Ax [...]ome, whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend, and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument, which wee haue transcribed out of Bellarmine aboue in the beginning of the 25. Chapter. Surely, we do admit his proposition, which is, That it is necessary for a Pastor to haue power about the Wolues, that hee may driue them away, by all the meanes he is able. Wee admit also the Assumption. That the Wolues which destroy and waste the Church of God, are heretickes. Where hee concludeth in this manner. Ergo, If a Prince, of a sheepe, or ramme, turne Wolfe; that is to say, of a Christian turne an hereticke, the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by excommunication, and also may charge the people, that they doe not follow him, and therefore may depriue him of dominion ouer his subiects. Surely, a very vnsound collection. In stead whereof, in good Logicke, should bee put this conclusion: Ergo, If any Prince, of a sheepe, or a ramme, turne Wolfe, the Pastor of the Church may driue him away by all the meanes hee can. For this ariseth rightly out of the former Propositions, and therefore if we grant them it cannot bee denied. Therefore all this is true; and wee grant it all: but yet that which hee annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion, is neither agreeable nor consequent, which is, that the Pastor may enioine the people, &c. For to be able, or not to be able (posse) where the right and equity is disputed, ought to bee vnderstoode not of the mere act, but of the power, which is lawfully permitted, and which agreeth with law and reason. So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that, [Page] which hee is able to doe iustly and honestly L [...]lins 15. D. de condit. institut.. And so the matter is brought about, as we are enforced to enquire, Id posse. 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 [Page] 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 Cap. per Venerabilem. qui fil. sunt legit.. 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 [Page] 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 aabout 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 1. inter stipulintem. 83. § [...]. de verb. [...]bl.. And no man is iudged but of his superiour. Because an equall hath no commaund ouer an equall 1. 4. D. de rece [...]t. qut arbitr. l ill [...] quo § tempe [...]uum. D. ad Sc. Treb.. 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, [Page] which these good fellowes doe attribute indirectly to the Pope, a soueraigne, free, and vncontrolled libertie to oppresse, and to exercise tyrannie, euen ouer good and innocent Kings. For first of all they ordaine, That it belongeth to the Pope to iudge, if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed. Secondly, that there is no appeale from his iudgement, Because he alone iudgeth all men, and is iudged of no man. And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malitious Pope, whensoeuer he conceiueth and burneth with any priuate hatred against any King, though he be neuer so good, to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogatiue, that hee may turne him out of his Kingdome, and reduce him to the estate of a priuate man. Which J would not speake in this place, (for I would not presage so hardly of the Gouernours of the holy See) but that all the world doth vnderstand, that the same hath in former ages beene practised by diuers Popes. And it is not yet aboue the age of a good olde man, since Iulius the II. did most wickedly and vniustly take from Iohn King of Nauarre, his Kingdome by Ferdinando of Aragon, by this very pretence of the Papall authoritie, the same Iohn being not guiltie, or conuinced of any crime, but onely because he fauoured Lewes the French King. And if to doe matters of this nature, is not to be superiour in temporall affaires, I would gladly learne of these great Masters, what it is to be a superiour. One thing I know (if this opinion of theirs bee true) that the Pope is able to doe more against Kings indirectly, then if he should haue directly any command ouer them. Of which point we haue spoken something before Cap. 12. The answer of the people to the Pope commanding to disobey their King..

If therefore the Pope, de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, shall goe about by his Decree or Bull, to forbidde them to obey their King, may not all the people againe, or some in the peoples behalfe, answer the Pope in this manner: Holy Father, You are not aboue our King in temporalties; and in that respect, you cannot hinder the temporall obedience which wee performe vnto him. [Page] Why doe you forbidde vs to doe that which God commands vs to doe? Is it because it is at your pleasure to interprete the will of God, comprehended in the diuine Law, and in the Scriptures? But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation bee made, as doth wholly make the law void, and vtterly doth destroy and dissolue the commandement. If there be any thing doubtfull or darke in the Law of God, wee presently flie to the See of Peter, that is, to the See which you now doe hold, to receiue the interpretation of the truth: but that which is cleere and manifest of it selfe, that needeth no light of any interpretation. Seeing then our Lord and Sauiour commands vs, to giue to Caesar those things which are Caesars, and to God those things which are Gods; and after by his Apostle, to be subiect to Princes and Powers, and to bee obedient to them: It is your part to declare vnto vs what things be Caesars, that is to say, what things belong to our King, and what be Gods; that both of them may haue that which belongeth to them: and in this distinction of things we will willingly heare your voice. But when you say, I will haue you giue nothing to Caesar, or to your Prince, you contradict Christ, and therefore wee heare not your voice. Wee doe indeede confesse, and professe also, that the exposition and interpretation of your Holinesse should take place touching the obseruation of the diuine Law: but we affirme absolutely, that that is not to be receiued, which maketh a scorne both of the Law of God, and of Nature, and bringeth the same into contempt. As for example, not to digresse from the matter we haue in hand: We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates: in the obseruation of this commandement, we as obedient children, doe willingly embrace your expositions and restraints, which doe not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandement it selfe: as when you say, that from hence there growes no obligation to obey Kings, but in those matters which belong to their temporall iurisdiction: that all spirituall things [Page] are to bee reserued to the Vicar of Christ, and to the Church. Also, when as you doe aduertise vs, that wee ought not to yeeld obedience to the King in that which he commands against the Law of God, or Nature, or which otherwise is repugnant to good manners. But when as you simply and absolutely command vs, that we doe not in any sort obey our lawfull Prince, or any of his charges, commandements, and lawes: wee may not obey this commandement of yours, because this is not to interprete the Commandement of God, which is granted to your Holinesse, but vtterly to abrogate and ouerthrow the same, which you cannot doe by any meanes. Christ when he deliuered to Peter the keies of the kingdome of heauen, did not giue him power Felin. in cap. siquando, nu. 4. de rescript. faciends de peccato non peccatum, that is to say, that which is sinne, to make it to be none. Therefore in this point we will follow the common doctrine of the Canonists: That we ought not to obey the Popes commandement, if either it bee vniust, or that many mischiefes or scandals are likely to ensue thereof, or else the disturbance and disquietnesse of the state of the Church and the Christian Common-wealth be likely to grow of the same: and therefore, if the Pope should command any thing to religious men, which were against the substance of order, that is, which should bee contrarie to the rule professed by them, they are not bound to obey it, (as Felinus interpreteth in cap. accepimus. de fid. instrum. & cap. si quando. de rescript) as the same Innocent teacheth In cap. n [...] Dei 43. de Simon. elsewhere: whom Martin of Carats in his tractate De Principibus, quast. 408. and Felinus in de cap. si quando, and d. cap. accepimus, doth report and follow. How much lesse then ought the subiects of Kings to giue eare to the Pope, going about to withdraw them from the obedience which is due to their King by the law of God and Nature, and confirmed with the most straight obligation of an oath? If you will vs to withdraw our neckes from the yoke and seruice of our King for this cause, because a spirituall good is hindred by our obedience, which is giuen to him by vs: wee answer, [Page] that this mischiefe, whatsoeuer it bee, chanceth to fall out by some accident: for simply and of it selfe, euill cannot grow out of good, nor good out of euill. Now wee haue against our willes committed that accident, but we cannot hinder it. Wee discharge the dutie due to our King: and according to patience in doing well, wee seeke glorie honour, and immortalitie. Rom. 2. He if he abuse the obedience due vnto him, and so great a benefit of God, hee shall feele God to be a most sharpe Judge and Reuenger ouer him. But it is not lawfull for vs to forsake our dutie, and to transgresse the commandement of God, that euen a very great good should follow thereby, lest wee purchase to our selues the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce. He that commands to obey our Kings, and to yeeld to Casar those things which be Casars, putteth no distinction betweene good and euill Princes, and therefore ought not we to make any distinction. L. de pretio. D. de put l. in [...]em. act. If, as B. Augustine teacheth, hee who See the admonition to the Reader. 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 [Page] 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; Can. seutentia. can. qui iuslas 11. q. 3. 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. Can. quomodo. can. illud 11. q. 3. can. certum 24. q. 3. 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 shalbe 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 [Page] 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 [Page] by the continual and solemne obseruation of the ancient Fathers, and the whole Church. For although they had great opportunit [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Ju libello qui Gallicè inscribitur, Le veritè difendue cō tre le pladoyé d [...] A [...]thonu Arnauld., 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 cō ming, 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Can. corripiantu [...] 24. q. 3.: 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, [Page] 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 Vide S. cap. 15.. 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 frō 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 [Page] 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 inte [...]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 manner of men, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Decre [...]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 s [...]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 La [...]cks also, that they should not conuent a Clergy man [Page] 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 Cau [...] & 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 Gu [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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) Bellarm. l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28. 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 [Page] 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: [...] 1545. 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 [...]ot what it is. We will in another place declare more plainly what it is, and in what points it consisteth. [...] cap. [...].

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. Di [...]t lib [...]. cap. 28. [...]. 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 [Page] may constraine the Emperor to set and dismisse the Clergie free out of his power, because the libertie of the Clergie belongeth to the authoritie of the Church. For euen by this we may discerne that this is false, that the Church neuer had greater authoritie then shee had then, when all the Clergie did in temporall subiection obey Christian Princes, and Officers of Princes. Neither was this exemption and immunitie granted to the Clergy to increase the authoritie of the Church, for that was no lesse before, but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and seueritie of secular iudgments did bring.

Hence arose that question, whether it were lawfull for Princes, euery one within his territories, without any iniurie to the church, in some case to reuoke the priuiledge of the exemption of the Clergie, from the intermedling of secular Iudges, and to reduce the whole businesse to the common law, and to the state wherein it stood at the first? Whereof when I was asked not long since, I answered nothing as then, but that it seemed to mee a strange question, and of a hard deliberation to resolue. For although it haue beene propounded by diuers, yet hath not beene handled by any according to the worth of the subiect.

The mouers of this question were moued by the common and vsuall reason of taking Priuiledges away, which the Pope himselfe, and all Princes are accustomed to obserue; that is, if either they beginne to be hurtfull to the Common-wealth, or the cause hath failed, and is gone, for which they were granted at the first, or the priuiledged Persons themselues doe abuse them to a wicked and vnlawfull end. And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption, doth continue, and is like to continue for euer; that is to say, the reuerence which all men ought to exhibite to that kind of men; but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places, to the great scandall of the whole Ecclesiasticall order, [Page] that that benefite may seeme deseruedly to bee taken from them. Thus much they. But wee will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our bookes de corruptione saculi, if God giue mee life and strength.

CHAP. XXXIIII.

NOw therefore I returne to the argument, which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter: and J answere, that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporall goods whatsoeuer, much lesse of a kingdome. For it is as certaine as certaine may be, that Excommunication, by which only froward & stubborn Christians are separated & excluded from the fellowship of the faithfull, and communion of the Church, doth take from no body their inheritance, and temporall goods. Vnlesse it proceed from such a cause, which the Prince hath by his lawes, especially ordained to be punished with the publication or losse of goods. In which case, not the Pope, but the Prince, not the excommunication, but the constitution of the ciuil law, doth take goods away from the person excommunicate. The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimoniall right, no not from a Clergy man, though hee bee excommunicated and deposed, or degraded by himselfe. Cap. cum [...] non ab homine. de iudic. And indeede the case were very hard of Christian people, if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeite his estate of all his lands and goods, by excommunication alone, being once passed against him, either by the law, or by any man, seeing that his goods being once seased into the Kings hands, doe scarse euer returne againe to the true owner. And so excommunication, which was appointed for a remedie and a medicine to helpe, should proue a mischieuous disease to ouerthrow. For that the person excommunicate, although hee shall bee restored againe into his former estate of Grace, by washing his [Page] fault away with due repentance, should neuer or very hardly recouer his goods againe, being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer, & peraduenture wasted or giuen away to some body, &c.

Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical, amongst which Excommunication is the most grieuous, doe worke vppon the soules, not vpon the goods and estates of the Laitie: as on the contrary, the bodies of men, and not their soules are afflicted with temporall punishments. Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the losse of their goods by the auhority, not of the Pope, but of the Prince: Seeing I say, it is not the Pope, that taketh temporall goods from any priuate person, by the power of his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, and by the force and vertue of excommunication, or other censure, although the same bee iust and grieuous; but the ciuill Prince onely, who to pleasure the Church, and to prosecute the wrong done vnto her, is accustomed by lawes enacted of himselfe, to ordaine sometime one punishment, sometime an other, at his owne pleasure, vpon the contemners of the Church; how then can it be, that the Pope can by his sole Pontificiall, and Ecclesiasticke authority take away from the Prince himselfe, kingdom, principality, iurisdiction, authority, and all dominion; who hath no iudge ouer him in temporall matters, and is not subiect to any ciuil pains? Is it so sure and certaine, that the Pope hath giuen him by the law of God more authority ouer Princes, then ouer priuate persons? or are Princes tied to liue in harder tearmes in the world, then priuate persons, so as the Church may practise that vpon a Prince, which shee cannot doe vpon a priuate man?

But that the truth of this matter may as yet appeare more plainely by an other meane, I demaund of these men, if the Pope haue greater authority ouer Kings and Emperours at this day, then hee had in times past, before that he was aduanced to a temporall honour by [Page] the bounty of Constantine and other Princes? or that his authority at this present is onely like equal altogether: I mean that which Christ conferred vpon Peter, & which no mortall man can either straighten or enlarge, and which he shall retaine neuer the lesse, although he should lose all temporall principality and gouernment? And if he haue greater authority, whence I pray you should he haue it: from God or from men? surely, neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest vs truth. For will any man euer say, that is in his right wits, that any new authority was giuen of God to the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes, from the time that he beganne to raigne, and to exercise a ciuill gouernment in certaine places, and to shew himselfe in mens eyes both with a Crowne and Miter on his head? or if he should say it, were he able to make it good by any reason or authority? much lesse hath any such authority accre [...]ed to him from men, because as it is commonly said, Actus agentium non operantur vltra ipsorum voluntatem L. non omnis 19 D [...]de reb. [...]ed.

And although Christian Kings and Emperours, who haue and doe submit their neckes in spirituall causes to the Vicar of Christ, (such as only professe the orthodoxall faith) yet none of them all passed into the temporall iurisdiction and authoritie of the Pope; none of them, but reserued to himselfe free and vntouched his secular iurisdiction. But if peraduenture it bee found that any hath done otherwise, the same is to be reckoned as an exception, by which the rule in non exceptis, is more stronglie confirmed. Out of this foundation, which is laid vpon most certaine reason, a very good argument may bee framed in this manner:

The Pope hath no greater authoritie ouer Christian Princes temporall, then hee had before hee was a temporall Prince himselfe.

But before he was a ten porall Prince, he had no temporall authoritie ouer them any way.

Ergo, Neither hath he now any ouer them.

[Page] The truth of the Proposition is so plaine, that I neede not vnderset it with other arguments: but the Aslumption is proued thus:

No inferiour and subiect hath authority ouer his superiour and Lord, that he may iudge him in that wherein he is subiect.

But the Pope before he was a temporall Prince, was inferiour and subiect to Kings and Emperours, as concerning temporall matters.

Ergo, hee had no temporall authority ouer them, that hee might iudge them in temporalties.

The proposition also of this Svllogisme is out of all question, seeing no man can be iudged but by his superiour: a superiour I meane in that very point, whereof the iudgement is made. For as we haue often said, Par in parem non habet imperium. And in nature it cannot be, that one and the same person should be both inferiour & superiour; in the same kind of authority, in respect of one and the same matter, no more then that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same. And the same reason doth Bellarmine vse to proue that the Pope cannot submit himselfe to the coactiue sentence of Councels Lib. 1. de Conciljs c [...]. 18.. The Assumption is confessed by the aduersaries, when as they affirme, and clearely confirme by reasons, That the exception, (vnlesse you wil say, exemption) of Cleriques in ciuill causes, aswell concerning their persons, as Gods, was brought or by the law of man Bell. b. 1. de Cler. cap. vlt.. For, (as Augustine witnesseth) humane lawes be the lawes of Emperours, because God hath distributed to mankind the humane lawes themselues by the Emperours and Kings of the world. Therefore the Clergy haue from Emperours and Kings whatsoeuer exemption and immunity it is, which now they enioy all the world ouer in ciuil causes, as we shewed in the last Chapter before. And that euen of their meere and free bounty; for they could not bee enforced in any sort by the Church, to grant the Clergy those priuiledges, seeing it is not found to be expressed & [Page] prouided by no law of God. And the law of Christ depriueth no man of his proper right & interest, as thēselus confesse, & we haue often signified. And therfore as their owne learning carieth; Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporalties, and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties. By all this discourse it followeth, that Clergie men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in ciuill and temporall matters, and were alike subiect to the authoritie of secular Iudges, as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities, before that they were by godly Princes endewed with these Priuiledges, of exemptions: and many holy Popes haue honestly confessed, that in this case there is no difference betweene the Bishop of Rome or the Pope, and other Clergie persons. Therefore that which might be done, let vs suppose it was done, that is, that the Pope being as yet inuested in no temporall principalitie, or priuiledge, doth liue vnder the gouernement of an other prince, as his fellow Bishops, and Brethren in France, Spaine and Britanie, and in other kingdomes doe. Would it not be euinced by the necessity of the former argument, that he cannot iudge and punish Princes in temporalties, to whome hee is temporally subiect? Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority ouer Kinges and Emperours, then he had before, through the exemptions and priuiledges granted euen by them; or else he cannot as yet iudge them in temporalties.

But if any bee so fond perhaps to say, that the Pope hath alwaies had this authority from the first beginning of the Church, viz. to iudge and depose euill princes, but through the iniurie of the times hee hath by accident been hindered, that he could not exercise it: so long as hee was subiect to them touching the temporalties: But now, after that hee hath withdrawne his necke from the temporall yoake of princes, & made himselfe a temporall princes, there is nothing to hinder, but that hee may freely put in vre that iurisdiction. [Page] I say if any shall vse this vaine ostentation, I must answere him nothing else, but that the things he speaketh are not onely false, but also [...], vnpossible: setting those things downe which the aduersaries confesse, and which is most true, that is to say, that the Popes before such time, as they were by godly Princes clearely exempted from temporal iurisdiction, were subiect to them both de iure and de facto. For it is impossible that at that time they should haue that power; for that it is not competent, but by right of superiority. Now it implieth a contradiction, that the Pope was by right superiour, and by right inferiour, at the same time, & in the same kind of authority, in respect of one and the same; and the naturall order of things doth not permit that the inferiour, or subiect should commaund his superiour and Ruler. Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Sauiour Christ, qui non venit soluere legem sed adimplere; should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature, and the most holy rule of life, they must needes bee in a great error, who affirme that this soueraigne authority, wherof we speake, was by Christ conferred on Peter, and in his persō on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him, when as they bring nothing to proue the same but certaine farre fetched reasons, and full weake, patched vp together; of similitudes, comparisons, allegories, and such like stuffe, as you may see by that which wee haue refuted. All which are to be reiected and little esteemed, when as by the position and granting of them, some absurditie doth follow, as in this point, or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded vpon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion.

The last argument of Bellarmine is behinde, in the refutation whereof we shall not neede to take much paines. The third argument (saith he) is this: A Shepheard may and ought so to feede his sheepe, as is conuenient for them. Ergo, [Page] the Pope may, and ought, command Christians those things, and inforce them to these things, to which euery one of them in his condition is bound: that is, constraine euery one to serue God in that manner, wherein they ought according to their state and condition. But Kings ought to serue God by defending of the Church, and by punishing heretickes and schismatickes. Therefore he may and ought to command Kings that they doe it, and vnlesse they doe it, to enforce them by excommunication, and other conuenient meanes.

Surely I see not what is contained in this argument, which either confirmes or infirmes the temporall authoritie of the Pope. For the beginning thereof is necessarilie to be vnderstood of spirituall foode. Now the Popes reuenewes, although they be great, would not suffice to feede all sheepe with corporall pasture; and so the end also and conclusion must be vnderstood of spitituall coercion and compulsion: for hee saith, to enforce by Excommunication, and other conuenient meanes, (meaning) Ecclesiasticall For the Pope is an Ecclesiasticke, not a temporall Shepheard, but only so farre as at this day hee hath temporall rule 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 [Page] 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 L. Fitius 15. D de cond instit. l. 4. §. condemnatum. D. dereiudic. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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: 3. Reg. 11. whereof, saith he, it is conceiued, that either a whole Kingdome, or some part, may bee taken away by the spirituall authoritie of the Church. For what power was once in the Priests and Prophets, the same is now in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church, whose dutie it is so to tender the health of soules, that they suffer not, by the disobedience and tyrannie of a wicked King, people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schisme and heresie.

Argument. 3 The third from this, That Elias anointed Asael King ouer Syria, and Iehu King ouer Israel, and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himselfe, that he that escaped the hands of Asael, him should Iehu kill; and him that had escaped the hands of Iehu, should Eliseus kill. By which figure, saith hee, what other thing was signified, then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set vp in the Church of God, that what was not executed by one of them, might bee executed by the other: of which powers, the last and most principall was in the Prophets, that is, in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of God? For as the sword of Eliseus was reckoned in the last place, which none could auoid, although hee had escaped the sword of Asael and Iehu: so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be shunned, although a man escape the sword of the secular power. For the spirituall power doth not vse a corporall or visible sword, which may bee hindred by certaine meanes, but vseth the sword of the spirit, which passeth thorow all places, and pierceth euen to the very soule of him whom it striketh.

To these hee knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias, wery much enterlaced with diuers obseruations and allegories, deuised by himselfe, to shew that the materiall sword doth obey the spirituall; and that not onely the Pope, but euen other Pastors of the Church, haue authority as well ouer body and goods, as ouer the soules of all Christians; which [Page] no sober man before him did euer so much as dreame of. But with what vnhandsomnesse, and incongruence hee deduceth this out of the reasons laid before by him, I will say open in the next Chapter.

But he applieth to his purpose the Argument taken from the person of Elias, and his actions in this manner. Elias by the sword of the spiri [...]e, that is to say, by his praiers commaunded the fire to fall from heauen, and to destroy those fifty, who despising the authority of the Prophets, said vnto him in the name of an earthly power; Man of God, the King hath commaunded thee to descend, 4. Reg. 1. &c. and in respect of the earthly power contemned that spirituall power, which Elias was indued with all. And in scorne saluted him, Homo Dei, man of God: And in this manner hee goeth forward thus. Could no [...] Elias at whose call fire deseended from heauen, and deuoured the fifty men, say to some Prince and Magistrate if he had been present: Sir, because these souldiers doe contemne me, and in me God, whose Prophet I am, runne vpon them, and kill them? or could not an earthly sword haue executed the same office, which the fire from heauen did performe? If fire, qu [...]th he, be the more noble element, then the earth, yea, or then the mettals which are digged out of the earth, I see not but that he who called fire from heauen, to satisfie his commaundement, might not much more haue bidden the Magistrate, who beareth the sword to draw out his sword for him against any King in the world whatsoeuer For which opinion of his, this firmament or strength onely is set down by him: That it skils not much amongst wise men, what is done by those things which are alike in moment and waight. I will not heere adde the fourth & fifth argument, which he vseth out of the sacred histories, touching Ozia, [...] [...]eg. 15. 2. Patal. [...]6. and Athalia, 4. Reg. 1 [...]. 2. Patal. 23. because Bellarmine hath referred thē among the examples whereon wee must deale in their place. But these are those Paraleipomena, to which Bellarmine doth remit vs, and which it is no wonder that he (who is both a subtill and sharpe disputer, and a vehement Oratour) [Page] did onely lightly report, but did not transferre into his owne worke: seeing they doe abound with so many and notorious faults, that a man would thinke they were written not by a Diuine, and a man exercised in the Scriptures, but by some prophane Smatterer, abusing intemperately Diuinity and the Scriptures: so very little is there in those things, which he assumeth in them for argument, which is consonant and agreeing with the subiect in question.

CHAP. XXXVI.

First then, Sanders is mistaken, and is very farre wide in this, that he imagineth that the Synagogue had any stroke in the abdication of Saul. For it is most manifest, that the whole businesse was commanded, denounced, and in the issue accomplished and executed by the extraordinarie iudgement and commandement of God, from whom is all raigne and power, without any ordinarie iurisdiction of the Priests, or of the Synagogue: whereby it is cleere, that the comparison of the Church of Christ & the Synagogue, or of Samuel and the Pope, is very impertinently and ignorantly made by him in this point. For although we confesse that which is the truth, that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is no lesse, yea that it is faire more, then of the Synagogue: yet therfore, I meane out of the comparison of the power & authoritie of each Church, it doth not follow, that the Pope may depriue a King neglecting or contemning the Commandements of God, of the right of his Kingdome, & instal another in his place, because the Synagogue was neuer endued with that power. For it is no where read in the Old Testament, that the Synagogue of the Iewes, or the H [...] Priest thereof for the time, did abrogate the Kingdome from any lawfull King of Israel of Iudaea, being neuer so wicke [...], distnate, and ciuell; or depriued him of the [...]ight o [...] the Kingdome, as hee saith, and substituted [Page] another in his place. Whence it falles out, that no argument from thence, nor no example may bee drawne in the new Law.

I let passe, that Samuel, although he were a great Prophet, yet hee was not the chiefe Priest, nay not a Priest at all, but onely a Leuite, [...]. who therefore could doe nothing against Saul by an ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction, much lesse by the authoritie of a secular iudgement, because he had publikely laid that downe before, when the people demanded a King. Therefore Samuel in the execution of this businesse, did onely performe a bare ministerie, almost against his will, and striuing both with praiers and teares against the same: and hauing receiued a speciall charge, he discharged an extraordinarie embassie, being sent from the Lord as the Messenger of his diuine iudgement. And that appeareth by this, that when he came to the King, he said, Giue me leaue, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath spoken to me by night. Therefore he may forbeare this argument, which is to small purpose drawne from the extraordinarie ministery of Samuel and the reiection of Saul, in regard that the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church or Pope, hath no comparison or proportion, no conueniencie or similitude with the same. God presently reiected Saul, and tooke the Kingdome from his posteritie: but he suffered other Kings, who seemed to be much more wicked then Saul, to raigne ouer his people, and to conuey the Kingdome to their children. So hath it seemed good in his eies. God the Lord of reuenge hath done freely, [...]. and he hath done all whatsoeuer he would: [...]. neither is any other reason to belong it. He hath mercie on whom he will haue mercie, and whom he will be hardneth Neither may any man say vnto him, [...]. Why hast thou made me thus? Must we beleeue the same of the Church, or of the Pope? They haueth it certaine limits and bounds, which they cannot passe. The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by Lawes saith Ioh de [...]. [...] And therefore it is not permitted [Page] neither to the Church, nor to the Ruler thereof the Pope, by an absolute libertie, and after the maner of God to determine of all kingdomes and businesses, and to dispose of all things at their pleasure. That onely is lawfull for them, which is comprehended in the holy writings or traditions of the Apostles, teaching their authoritie. Which seeing it is so, there is none that hath any skill in reasoning, but may plainly see, that the argument deriued from those things which Samuel did, can by no meanes be concluded to establish the Popes authoritie: vnlesse it be deduced either from the ordinarie power of the Synagogue (wherein notwithstanding Samuel was not the chiefe) to the ordinarie authoritie of the Christian Church, or from the extraordinarie ministerie of Samuel, to the extraordinarie ministerie likewise of the Pope: whereof the former, from the Synagogue to the Church, although it may be rightly concluded in forme as they say, yet it commeth short for the purpose, because it offendeth in matter; because the Synagogue hath neuer had any temporall power ouer Kings. And the latter is not of force, but in that case, that the same may befall to the Pope now, which befell to Samuel in those times: viz. that as the Lord spake to Samuel touching Saul, so he should speake to the Pope by name, about the abdication of some certaine King, and of substituting an other in his place. For in this case it cannot bee denied, but that the authoritie of the Pope is equall to Samuels, and his Ministerie alike in executing the Commandement of God. But if not, I meane if the Lord hath not expresly spoken to the Pope in his eare, I pray you how can it be, that when he desires by his owne proper authoritie to thrust any King out of his Throne, that he should maintaine, that hee doth it by the example of Samuel, whom God did delegate by a speciall charge, and an extraordinarie mission, to signifie his decree touching the abdication of Saul? Samuel knew certainely, that God had reiected Saul and all his race, that they should not [Page] raigne; for the Lord told him so much. But the Pope knowes not, whether God haue reiected that Prince whom he desires to depose, vnlesse God hath specially reuealed it to him. Seeing there is nothing more certaine by the Scriptures, then that God doth for diuers causes tolerate wicked Kings, and contemners of his word, and doth cause them to raigne for the time, Iob 34. whom when it pleaseth him, he either conuerteth to him, or euerteth and ouerthroweth. And it happeneth often, that they whom the Pope, who iudgeth according to outward appearance, pronounceth vnworthie to raigne by their present conditions and state of life, those the Lord, to whom all things are present, declareth to be most worthie to raigne, their mindes being conuerted to holinesse and grace: whereof not [...]ong agone we haue seen a memorable example now in our age. For who knoweth not (I speake it to the honour and glorie of this great King) that HENRY the IV. who now most happily gouerneth the sterne of the Kingdome of France, and I pray God he may gouerne long, was not onely excommunicate by Gregorie and Sixtus Popes, but also was so reiected, and abandoned, and depriued of all right of Kingdome, that by their censures they declared him vncapable of any kingdome or gouernment whatsoeuer; whose iudgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorne, and demonstrated that the King, which was reproued by them, was most worthie of a worthie Kingdome. Seeing then these things stand thus, and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God, how can the Pope know and vnderstand the pleasure and will of God, vnlesse like vnto Samuel he be aduertised before? Therefore that which Sanders saith, That King who shall refuse to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope, &c. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to excute those things which the Lord shall command him by speciall reuelation. For otherwise what shall we say? Philip the Faire, did he therefore disdaine to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth [Page] of the Pope, because he would not heare Boniface, swelling with a most proud ambition? that it should bee thought that he might bee by Boniface depriued of the right of his crowne, and an other to bee substituted in his place? What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not heare Iulius the II. being complete armed, and playing the souldier rather then the Pope? did hee seeme to haue contemned God, speaking by the mouth of the Pope, so farre, is both he and his fauoure [...]s should deserue to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdomes, at the pleasure of man, that boiled inwardlie with a priuate hatred against him? To belieue such matters, good Lord, should I tearme it ignorance, or madnesse? But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by vs.

His second argument, (to confesse plainely the weaknesse of my witte) I doe not well vnderstand to what purpose it aimeth. For that it may haue some strength and force to proue the point which is in hand, and to bee consequent and agreable to that which is concluded, we must of force admit two most false suppositions as true and necessary. Whereof one is, That they who either did foretell any thing that should come to passe by reuelation from God, or by his commaundement, willed any thing to bee done, might by their own right, I meane, by their proper authority, and ordinary vertue of then office, without any speciall reuelation, or commaundement from God, commaunde the same, whatsoeuer it was to be done, or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselues. As though Ahias the Silonite, whome God had sent to Ieroboam with a speciall charge, that hee should tell him, that he will giue him ten Tribes out of the Kingdome of Salomon, in these words, Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Behold I will rent the Kingdome out of the hand of Salomon, and will giue theeten Tribes. As though, I say, Ahias without any such expresse commaundement of God, & [Page] without any speciall reuelation, might haue called Ieroboam or any other into Salomons Kingdome, or into part thereof. Then which nothing can bee said more falsly, or foolishly. And the other supposition is, that all Priests and Prophets of the old law, had authority to bestow & to take away kingdoms, so farre forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people, which also is most false, neither is there to bee found in all the scriptures any example, or steppe, or taken of the same. Seeing then the whole force of this second argument is so grounded on these two false suppositions, that it cannot bee rightly concluded, except they be granted, & that it is euident enough, that there is no firme consequence, ápotestate delegatia Principe, ad potestatem ordi [...], that is, from the authority of a Committee from a Prince, to the authority of an ordinary officer, who doth not see by his owne iudgement, without much Logicke, that all this busines which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias, is as farre as may be from that which he hath vndertaken to proue?

The third argument also is euen of the same stuffe; for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias, for the speciall execution of certaine busines to the ordinary office of the Pope? or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be? Elias, at the Lords commaundement by name; (for that Sanders omitted, which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame,) annointed Asael King ouer Syria, and Iehu King ouer Israel, and Eliseus a Prophet for him: Ergo the Pope may take away and giue kingdoms and principalities as hee shall thinke good? For these cannot be ioined together, vnlesse this medium bee set downe and granted; That the Pope may doe as much by the authority of his ordinary iurisdiction, without the expresse commaundement of God, as the Prophets could when the Lord commaunded specially and expresly, which cannot bee said without great iniury to God.

[Page] But as touching the sword of Elizeus, whereof hee speaketh: First, hee doth with much learning and piety discourse of the same. That it may bee vnderstood of the same. That it may be vnderstood of the spiritual sword, which is in the Church, & in the hād of the Pope, whome no man whatsoeuer hee be, either King or Emperour can auoide: and which is placed by the Lord in the last place; both for that it is ineuitable, and therfore the more to bee feared then the other; as also for that the bodies onely are killed by them, but the soules by this. But afterwards, when hee proceedes after his manner, and by interpretation transferreth that place of scripture, and an other of the reuenge of Elias vpon the two companies of 50. & their souldiers, to the temporall authority of the Pope, he slideth into that shamefull errour which wee noted afore, which is, that Prophets without speciall commission, or diuine reuelation, might by their owne authority and pleasure chastise euen with capitall punishments all those whome God had decreed by a secret dispensation to take reuenge vpon either by miracle, or otherwise, either to manifest the glory of his maiesty, or to vindicate the iniuries of his seruants; and that which God had commaunded to be done onely by one meane, that they may execute by other waies, and meanes as please them; that hereby he may proue as by a necessary consequēce, that the Pope (whose authority is no lesse, yea greater in the new law then was the authority of the Prophets and Priests in the old) may doe full as much by his Apostolicke authority.

But who doth not know, that God hath granted many things to the praiers of his seruants, and for their takes hath wrought many thinges wonderfully, euen without their prayers, which it was not lawfull for them by any way or meane to attempt, much lesse to execute, if hee did not commaund it first? The reason whereof is plaine and euident in the persons of the Prophets. For [Page] it is cleare amongst all men, that none of the Pro phets had any authority and gouernment ouer the Hebrewes, besides a very few, who were both Prophets and Princes of the people and Iudges together, as Moses, Iosue, Samuel, Dauid. But the rest, although they were inspired from God, yet they liued priuately without any temporall gouernment, declaring and executing those things onely, whereof they were aduertised by the spirite of God; and all their prescience and fore knowledge was so tempered and moderated from heauen, that they might know and foretell neither all things, for at all times, but so farre as was imparted vnto them by the spirite of God; whereof the Prophet Iadon is a witnesse, who being deceiued by the false Prophet, affirming that the Angell of the Lord had spoken with him, did not vnderstand that hee lied, and thereby was cra [...]t [...]ly abused and brought to destruction [...]. Reg. 13., Eliseus also is witnesse, who when the poore Sunamite lay at his feet, said to Giezi that desired to remoue her, 4. Reg. 4. Lether alone, for her soule is in bitternesse, and the Lord bath bidit from me, and hath not told me.

Therefore, whereas Sanders asketh, whether Elias could not say to some principall man or magistrate, if hee had beene present; runne vpon these Souldiers and kill them? and if so bee that Prince bad offended, if vpon Elias his word, he had slaine the Kings subiects; that cannot be resolued but by the tenor of Gods pleasure known in euery businesse. And therefore as concerning Elias in this case; if God did giue him commission to punish such offenders, either specially by the sword, or generally by any meane whatsoeuer: no man doubts, but that hee might without sinne commit to any man the authority and execution of the sword, and any man without offence might vndertake to execute that commaundement. But if, as it is likely, the Lord had only reuealed so much to him, that he would destroy with fire from heauen those wicked desiders and scoffers: [Page] he was onely to expect that, and to practise nothing else against them, after the guise and fashion of men, or giue order at his pleasure to execute any ciuill punishments vpon them, which he might not doe without impietie, because he had receiued neither from God nor man any ordinarie, nor warranted & delegated iurisdiction to do it. And for that cause he had sinned grieuously, if he had willed or perswaded any Prince or Magistrate any such thing; and these also had sinned, if vndertaking his commaundement, they had slaine the Kings subiects L. non solum. 11. §. semanda to. D. de iniur. lib. reprehendenda. C. de instit. & substi.. Nothing can be propounded more certainely and plainly then this distinction, that it is a wonder, that so absurd an opinion should fall from Sanders, as to thinke that Elias might simply, and without the expresse commaundement of God, execute death vpon the Kinges souldiers, in what manner hee listed. Now the reasons he vseth for the strengthning of this opinion of his, are friuolous, and vtterly vnworthy to bee brought by a man of a sharpe iudgement, especially a Diuine for the dicision of such a question. That seruice, which the sire from heauen did, saith he, could not the earthly sword haue performed the same? Yes surely could it, and not onely a sword, but also any other weapon, if it had beene vsed by Gods commaundement; neither did any euer doubt of that. But because the Lord prepared that reuenge by fire onely against the fifty, and acquainted the Prophet in the spirit with his purpose Liran in illum locum.; Elias neither ought nor could take his reuenge by any other instrument or meane, vnlesse the same had likewise beene declared to him by the same spirit, because in matters not reuealed he was neither ordinary or extraordinary Iudge. Moreouer, if that which the lawes of men doe ordaine and enact: When any man is condemned to be punished with the sword, hee ought to bee punished with the sword, not with an axe or bill, or club, or halter, or by any other way Aut. da [...] 8. §. 1. de p [...]n., Who is so auerse from truth, and from all reason to belieue, that one certaine and particular manner of execunon, being prescribed by the Lord, may be [Page] changed by man into an other forme and kind of punishment? For as in all businesses [...]. the ends of the commaundement are to be kept diligently, so chiefly in the diuine commaundements, [...]. 18. God hath charged that his commaundements be kept euerely.

Hereby it appeares, that it is very sleight and slender which he laieth downe for a strength of his conceit, That with wise men it maketh no matter, what is made of those things which are of the same momient and weight. And herein his errour is double: o [...]e because he draweth that Maxime of his to vniuersallie and generallie, to all those things which are made by nature, or Art, or hand: whereas notwithstanding, as touching humane actions it is certaine, that that sentence hath place onely in those things, which men doe of their owne accord, or vpon a commission receiued with free liberty of execution: as for example, that he is called a murderer, who by villany hath beene the cause of any mans death by any meane or instrument, because in such a crime it skilleth not what is made by those things, quae eiusdem ponderis & momenti sunt. But in the case wherein any thing is commended strictly, and by name to any mans trust to be performed in a certaine manner, and after a certaine forme, the lawes doe not allow the Committee to execute the same any other way, as appeareth plainely, by the place which I related aboue, and infinite others of the Ciuill and Pontificiall law.

His other errour is, that he thinketh there is no ods nor difference, if wicked men be strooken with a diuine thunderbolt from God, or with force of weapons by the power of men: because he saith, that they haue both one weight; for although there be one effect of all extreme punishments, that is, the death and destruction of the condemned, yet there is much consideration to bee had, by what manner and meane the same is executed vpon the guilty, because there bee degrees as of crimes, so of paines: and hereby it commeth [Page] to passe, that by the kind of the vltion, and griceousnesse or lightnes of the punishment, we iudge of the hainousnesse of the offence, by the proportion and resemblance of the punishment with the fault [...].. For the distribution of punishments and rewards doth require a Geometricall proportion. The Poet saith pretily Hora lib. 1. Sa [...]y. 3..

—adsit

Regula. peccatis quae poenas [...]roget ae quas:

Nescutica dignum horribili sectere fligello.

But Where greater punishments doe follow, let him bee corrected with greater punishment G [...]eg. lib 7. epist 53. [...]. dist. 50. Excellently saith S. Augustine [...]. 24. q. 1.. As al other things: Who doubteth, but that this is the more hainous offence which is punished more seuerely? Therefore doth he verie vndiscreetelie determine that all punishments being taken by sword, by fire, by famine, and by other means, are of the same waight and heauines, that he might conclude, that the Prophet had discharged his dutie, if hee had procured to haue them flame with the earthly sword, whome the Lord said he would strike with a thunderbolt from heauen. Who doth not know that the anger and reuenge of almighty God doth shine much more brightlie in punishments, not which are inflicted after the ordinary manner of men, but are sent strangelie & miraculously from heauen? or who can weigh matters so vneuenly in his iudgement, as to say, that they perished by punishments, equall for grieuousnesse, who being swallowed vp by the gaping earth, descended aliue into hell, as well as those who are taken away by the ordinarie or extraordinarie punishments of mans lawes? And hitherto I thinke I haue said enough of these reasons of Sanders which were omitted by Bellarmine, not without cause Now let vs returne out of this by-path to Bellarmine againe.

CHAP. XXXVII.

[Page]

HItherto haue I bent the sharpenesse of my best vnderstanding, to enquire with diligence into all the reasons, which Bellarmine or Sanders haue touching the temporall authoritie of the Pope. Therefore now it remaineth that with the like care and indeauour I conuert my mind and hand to examine the examples propounded by Bellarmine, which truely is but a poore and a weake kind of proofe. For he pretends that his opinion is proued two manner of wayes, by reasons and by examples; I could haue wished with all my heart that hee had brought forth stronger reasons: the affection which I beare to the Sea Apostolique, doth so affect and possesse me, that I doe very earnestly desire that all the authority which this author doth attribute vnto her, may bee also allowed by the best right that can be. But wee haue heard his reasons already, now let vs heare his examples.

The first is, saith he, 2. Paralip. 26. Where we read that Ozia the King when hee vsurped the Priests office, was by the high Priest cast out of the temple and being stroke by God with a leprosie for the same offence, was forced to goe out of the City, and to leaue his kingdome to his Sonne. For it is plaine, that hee was put out of the City and gouernement of the Kingdome, not of his owne accord, but by the sentence of the Priest. For we reade in the 13. of Leuit. Whosoeuer saith the Law, shall bee desiled with the leprosie and is separated by the iudgement of the Priest, hee shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing then this was a law in Israel. & withall wee read, 2 Paralip. 26. that the King dwelled without the City in a solitary house, and that his sonne did iudge within the City the people of the land; we are constrained to say, that he was separated by the iudgement of the Priest, and consequently depriued of the authority of raigning. If therefore a Priest could in times past iudge a King [Page] for a corporall leprosie, and depriue him of his Kingdome; why may not he doe it now for a spirituall leprosie, that is, for heresie, which was figured by the leprosie, as Augustine teach [...]th, in quaest. Euangel lib. 2. quaest. 40. especially seeing 1. Cor. 10. Paul doth say, that all happened to the Iewes in figures? Thus he.

I haue often wondred, and yet cannot leaue wondring, that men famous for the opinion of learning, should commit their thoughts to writing in so sleight and homelie a fashion, that a man would thinke they had not read the Authors which they commend, or haue not fully vnderstood those they haue read, or that of set purpose they would corrupt their meaning; which fault is very common in our age: wherein most of the Writers following the credit of other men, doe draw the testimonies and authorities of their assertions, not from the Fountaines themselues, but from the Riuers and Pipes, being corruptly deriued by the negligence and fault of other men; so as looke what the first haue either malitiously or negligently detorted and wrested to another sense, that others trusting to their search and iudgement, doe transcribe into their bookes, for certaine and vndoubted testimonies. Which although it be very seldome found in Bellarmine, being a faithfull and a cleere Author, yet it cannot be denied, but that hee following vnaduisedly Sanders and others, hath not erred a little in the three Chapters of the affirming the Popes temporall authoritie, especially in propounding the former example, and this following.

I prooued long agoe, in my bookes contra Monarchomachos, that it was most false, That Ozia was depriued of the authoritie of his gouernment by the iudgement of the Priest. For in very truth, there is nothing more expresly deliuered in the whole historie of the Kings, then that [...]zias, from the sixteenth yeere of his age, wherein hee beganne his raigne, remained King continually vnto the 68. yeere, which was the end of his life; and that hee was [Page] not any time depriued of the authoritie of his gouernement. Indeed it is true, hee dwelt apart in a house by it selfe; and therefore, by reason of his sicknesse, hee could not execute those duties of a King, which consist in action: but that tooke not from him his interest in his kingdome, nor authoritie of gouernment. Otherwise wee must denie, that children being inaugurated and crowned, as in time, past [...] Ioas, and Iosias, and men of sawfull [...] 11. [...] 22. age, are any Kings, if once they fall into any grieuous disease of minde or bodie; seeing they are hindred by their youth these by their sicknesse, from the procuration and gouernment of the Kingdome, which consisteth in action. For the Scripture saith, In the 27. yeere of Ieroboam King of Israel, raigned Azarias (who was called both Ozias and [...]acharias) the sonne of Amasias King of Iuda: he was sixteene yeeres of age when hee began to raigne, and raigned 52. yeeres in Ierusalem. And againe in the same Chapter: In the 52 yeere of Azariah King of Iuda raigned Pha [...]ee the sonne of Romelias ouer Israel in Samaria. And Iosephus [...] that this Izariah or Oziah died in the 68 yeer [...] of his age, and the 52. of his raigne. 'If therefore [...] 11. Ozias began to raigne being 16. yeeres of age, and raigned 52. yeeres as the Scripture witnesseth, and died in the 68. yeere, what space, I pray you, in his life can be [...]ound, wherein he was iudged and depriued of his right in his Kingdome? In the meane time his sonne was Curator or Regent to him, as they are wont to haue, [...] qui in ea causasunt, vt superesse rebus suis non possint. For it is added [...] in that storie; Ioatham the sonne of the King gouerned the palace, and ruled the house of the King, and iudged the people of the Land. Marke, I pray you, that Ioatham is called the sonne of the King, in the life and sicknesse of his Father, and Gouernour of the Palace, and Ruler of the House of the King. Now hee iudged the people, because iudgements could not come to the King, through the force of his disease, and the separation by the prescript of the Law of God: as Lyranus teacheth in that [Page] place. To be short, the Scripture saith: And Ozias slept with his Fathers, and they buried him in the Field of the Kings Sepulchers, because he was leprous; and Ioatham his sonne raigned in his stead. Marke againe, that Ioatham beginneth not to raigne, but after the death of his Father. Therefore although it bee true, that Ozias, by reason of his leprosie, was separate by the iudgement of the Priest, because it was expresly prouided by the Law of God: yet it is not true, that hee was depriued of the authoritie of raigning or enforced to renounce his Kingdome to his sonne, as these men falsely doe auerre. The authority of raigning, and the administration of a Kingdome, doe differ very much, and no lesse then in the ciuill Law, proprietie and possession. The authoritie is alwaies in the person of the King, and is ioined with the right of the Crowne: but the gouernment and procuration, or administration, may fall into other mens hands; so as one may be King, and another the Gouernour. Whence they who in the minoritie or diseases of Kings, doe beare the highest place of gouernment in the Kingdome, are honoured with the title of Gouernour, Regent, Tutor, Protector, or some such like; and they propound nor handle any publike affaire in their owne name, but in the name and authoritie of the King, being either infant, or sicklie.

Therefore this example of Ozias is so farre from helping anything to this temporall authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings, as it maketh very much for to impugne and ouerthrow the same. For if (as he reporteth out of the Apostle, and wee confesse) that all things befell to the Iewes in figures, and if the corporall leprosie, for which a man was separated from the multitude of the children of Israel, and dwelt alone without the campe, was a figure of the spirituall leprosie, that is, of heresie, by Augustine his testimonie; to bee short, if the Priesthood of Aaroa was a figure of the Priesthood of the new Law; out of these figures two arguments are appositely drawne to this [Page] question: whereof the former doth notably confirme the spirituall authority of the Pope ouer Christian Kings and Princes; the other prooueth, that this temporall authoritie of his, whereof we speake, is altogether commentitious, and forged, vsurped, and contrarie to the Law of God.

The former argument is framed thus: As the Priests in times past banished out of the Temple King Ozias, being strucke with the leprosie, that he might dwell without the Citie; so at this day the Pope may iudge, and by excommunication separate from the communion of the faithfull, a King infected with heresie, which is a spirituall leprosie, and so constraine him to dwell without the Citie, that is, without the Church Catholike, vntill hee be cleansed from his leprosie, that is, vntill hee haue absured his heresie. But if such a leprosie sticke by him till death, hee is not to bee buried in the Sepulchers of the Kings, that is, in the Church, but in the field, because hee is leprous, that is to say, an hereticke. Now that I said, that the Pope might separate an hereticke King by excommunication from the communion of the faithful, it must bee vnderstood of the spirituall separation of soules, and not of bodies. For subiects ought not to denie their obedience to an excommunicate King.

The second argument may rightly bee concluded in this forme: As the iudgement of the Priest of a corporall leprosie, in the old Law, wrought nothing but the separation of the leprous, and relegation without the Campe or Citie; and as the iudgement of the Priest touching the leprosie of Azaria or Ozia, could not take from him the right of his Kingdome, but onely imposed on him a necessitie to dwell by himselfe without the Citie, (for in that he did not actually, as they say, gouerne the Kingdome, that fell out, not through the sentence of the Priest, who iudged of the leprosie, but the force of the continuall disease of his bodie) so also at this day the censure and sentence of the Pope, whereby hee iudgeth [Page] and declareth a King to bee an hereticke, although it cause a King to remaine without the Citie of God, that is, without the Catholike Church, as hath beene said; yet it cannot take from him the right and authority to raigne: and so the figure doth very fitly conuene with the figured. For in these figures of the old Testament, the image of the authoritie of the Pope ouer Kings is not onely drawne in lineaments, but fully expressed to the life; that if any fit argument may be drawne from the shadow to the body, from the figure to the figured, none can more euidently or assuredly bee fitted then these, from the constitution of the old Law, to the obseruation of the new. But if the aduersaries out of all the figures of the old Law, can shape any one like to this for the strengthening of their opinion, they shall haue my voice for the bell: surely they shall neuer finde mee against them. Therefore now let vs see the second example.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

THe second, saith he, is out of 2. Paralip. 23. whereas when Athalia had [...]yrannously vsurped the Kingdome, and maintained the worship of Baal, Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and the Souldiers, and commanded them to kill Athalia, and in her place did chuse Ioas King. Now that the high Priest did not counsell, but command, it appeareth by those words, 4 Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all which Ioiada the Priest commanded them: also by these words, 2. Paralip. 23. But Ioiada the oigh Priest going out to the Centurions and Captaines of the Army, said vnto them, Bring her out, meaning Athalia the Queene, without the doores of the Temple, and let her be slaine without by the sword. And that the cause of this deposition and execution of Athalia, was not only her tyrannie, but also, for that she maintained the worship of Baal, is plaine out of those words which follow immediately after her death: Therefore, saith the Scripture, all the people went into the house of Baal, and [Page] destroied it, and brake down the Altars and Images thereof. They slew also Mathan the Priest of Baal.

Surely I doe not know what mooued Bellarmine to thrust vpon vs this example, so remote and farre off from the matter and controuersie: vnlesse because hee had obserued that it was propounded by others before him, fearing peraduenture, lest if he had omitted it, hee should be accused by some emulous aduersaries, of negligence and preuarication to Pope Sixtus V. who being beyond all measure imperious and haughty, and not greatly fauouring the societie of the Iesuites, determined to reduce that whole Order to a straighter rule and habit of life, which should bee distinguished from the Secular Priests in colour, forme, or some other outward marke. Therefore I doe muse with my selfe, how they obtained of him that Bull, that they might occupie the perpetuall Dictature of the Vniuersitie of Pontimussa, that is, that they should for euer bee Rectors, or Presidents, against the forme and statutes of that foundation, made by Gregorie the XIII. There be that thinke, that the Bull was supposititious, that is, deuised and counterfait. Surely although it were true and granted by Sixtus, yet it ought not to bee of force, because it was obtained presently after his creation: at which time, whatsoeuer the Popes doe grant, is iudged not so much to be obtained of them, as to be extorted from them. Glos. in pro [...]m. reg. Cancell. Neuisa. in syl. nuptial. Reb [...]st. in tract. vt beneficia aut. vacat. nu. 9. & 10. But to the matter.

That the example touching Ioiada and Athalia belong nothing to this disputation, it appeareth by this, that all our controuersie standeth in this: Whether the Pope bee endued with so great authority ouer lawfull Kings and Princes Secular, that hee may for certaine causes cast them downe from their Throne, and depriue them of the right of their Kingdome, and anoint and inaugurate others in their places. But the example of Athalia, is of a woman which held the Kingdome by no right, but by most cruell and sauage tyrannie, by force and villanie, and by the bloudy murder of the Kings [Page] house; who stood therefore in that case, that shee might iustly be slaine of any priuate person, without the commandement of the Priest Ioiada. But for that such a matter seemed dangerous to attempt, and hard to compasse against her, who was mother to Ochozias the King deceased: therefore there was great neede of the counsell and helpe of Ioiada the high Priest, or surely of some other, who likewise either by the greatnesse of his authoritie, or the opinion of holinesse, might assemble, and euen stirre vp the Souldiers and the people to vndertake so noble and worthy an action.

And that this was done, not so much by the commandement, as aduice of Ioiada, it is plaine by that which is said: Ioiada the high Priest sent, and taking to him the Centurions and Souldiers, caused them to bee brought into him into the Temple of the Lord, and hee strooke a Couenant with them. And that the Interpreters doe note in that place, but the words iubere, or praecipere, are wont to be spoken of euery man, who hath the chiefe place in a Faction or Societie. Therefore there is nothing found in this example, which hath any the least similitude or agreement with the assertion which is vndertaken by the aduersaries to prooue. The assertion is, that lawfull Princes, that is to say, they who obtaine Kingdomes and Principalities, by right either of Election or Succession, may for certaine causes be deposed from their gouernement by the Pope. And then what doth it helpe for the proofe of this proposition, to propound an example of a Tyrant, or the killing of a Tyrant? Doe they thinke that there is no difference betweene the true Lords and lawfull possessors, and the spoilers and inuaders of possessions which belong not to them? Now whether there were or no any other cause or reason to depose and slay her, besides her tyrannie, it maketh no matter: it is sufficient that she was a Tyrant, and a violent vsurper of the Kingdome, insomuch as there was of her part no hindrance nor barre in Law, but that she might be cast headlong [Page] out of the seat, and bee slaine by any of the people. Which cannot in like manner be said of a lawfull King; whose person, although it be wicked, the Law of a kingdome, and the authoritie of rule, ought alwaies to protect and defend, from all iniurie and humane punishment; as wee haue prooued otherwhere, out of the writings of the holy Fathers. Now the third followeth.

CHAP. XXXIX.

THe third example, saith hee, is of S Ambrose, who being Bishop of Millan, and by that the spirituall Pastor and Father of Theodosius the Emperour, who ordinarily did reside at Millan, did first excommunicate him for the slaughter which by his commandement was done at Thessalonica: secondly, hee enioined him to make a Law, that the sentence giuen of the slaughter and of the publication of goods, of them who were slaine, should not stand good, till after thirty daies from the pronouncing of the sentence, to the end that if hee had through anger and precipitation of minde, commanded any thing, hee might reuoke it within the space of so many daies. But Ambrose could not excommunicate Theodosius for that slaughter, vnlesse hee had first vnderstood and iudged of that cause, although it were Criminall, and belonged to an externall Court: but hee could not vnderstand and iudge a cause of that nature, vnlesse also he had beene a lawfull Iudge of Theodosius in an externall Court. Besides, to constraine the Emperour to make a ciuill Law, and to prescribe vnto him a forme of a Law, doth it not manifestly declare, that a Bishop sometimes doth 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 [Page] 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 Excōmunication, interdiction, suspension, depositiō, 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 [Page] diuers penalties, as the ciuill Iudge taketh knowledge of adultery, vt sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur. L. quamnis. 30. C. ad l. Iul. de adul. 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 Can. de his vbi glos. vlt. dist. 50 glos. in can. Mensuram ad ver. Sacer. do [...] de ponit. dist [...]. 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 Can. cum ad verum. 96. dist. 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 [Page] 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 Lib. 1. Cap. 7. Ethic. 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 Cap. cum non ab homine. de iud.. 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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, [Page] 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 thought that that excellent Diuine, had not sufficiently inough satisfied his ambition, when as notwithstanding hee had giuen [Page] him a great deale more then he should haue done. Besides all these reasons, this is somewhat, that the chiefe dutie of a story writer, consisteth in reporting, not in iudging, in which regard, many who excelled more in remembrance of things done, then in iudgement of them, applied their thoughts to the historicall narration, and contenting themselues with the paked and simple relation onely of all occurrents, did leaue indifferent the equity thereof to all mens censures.

Therefore although wee owe to those men the true knowledge, and faithfull report of matters passed, which they in their writings reserued and conuaied to posterity: yet we apprehend and receiue the equity and iustice of those actions, not from the commendation of the writers, but either from the authority of the scriptures, or traditions of the Apostles, or the ancient decrees of the Church, or lastly from the right rule of naturall reason. And so here will be the point alwaies to enquire and examine the equity of euery action, and to search diligently, not what the author of a story hath praised or dispraised, but what ought to bee praised or dispraised by good right and desert L. Sed l [...]cet 12. D. de off. p [...]asid.. Therefore I stand not much vpon examples, which neither are found and commended in the Scriptures nor are not proued to be worthy commendation, by some of those waies at the least, which we haue set downe. For assuredly, it is a very dangerous matter, for a man to propound to himselfe examples to imitate, being not before weighed in this ballance, and by these waights, seeing that they that apply themselues to reade monuments of antiquity shall more often light vpon more euill examples then good and vertuous. For which cause the Emperour doth grauely admonish all Iudges, non exemplis sed legibus esse iudicandum, and that in all businesses, they ought not to follow that which hath been by great Magistrates before them [...] iud [...]. 1 [...]. C. de sent. & [...]., sed veritatem, legum & iustitiae vestigia.

These considerations aduise me, not to dwell verie [Page] long vpon the prolixe and exquisite discussion and examination of the rest of the Examples, produced by Bellarmine, vnlesse I shall obserue peraduenture, that there is somewhat couched in them, whereby the vnwary Reader may be ensnared, vnder a pretence and opinion of a truth. Therefore for some of them let vs see which, and what they be.

The fift is of Gregory the II. saith he, who forbad tribute to be paid by the Italians to the Emperour Leo the Imagebreaker, being excommunicate by him, and by that meanes cut a part of his Empire from him.

Surely I thinke in this example the truth of the businesse as it passed is not set downe, although I know it is so reported by certaine Writers of storie. And that which induceth me to thinke so, is both the excellent learning of that Pope, ioined with a speciall integritie of life, and also the testimony of Platina in this matter; who amongst all the worthy actions of that Pope, reporteth this, that by his owne authoritie hee withstood the Italians, being willing to fall away from that impious Prince, and to chuse another Emperour ouer them. For so writeth Platina. But then the Emperour Leo the Third, when hee could not openly inueigh against the Pope, publisheth an Edict, that all they who were vnder the Roman Empire, should dispatch and carrie cleane away out of the Churches, the Statues and Images of all Saints, Martyrs, and Angels, to take away Idolatrie, as he said: and he that did otherwise, he would hold him for a publike enemie, or Traitor But Gregorie doth not onely not obey so great impietie, but also admonisheth all Catholikes, that they would not in any sort commit so great an errour, through the feare, or Edict of the Prince. With which cohortation the people of Italie was so encouraged, that they went very neere to chuse another Emperour: but Gregorie laboured with all the power he could, that it should not be.

And Platina addeth, that this Pope, as a most holy man, often admonished the Emperour by Letters, that he would let goe the errours of some ill disposed persons about him, and embrace [Page] the true faith at the length; and that he would forbeart to destroy the Images of the Saints, by whose memorie and example men might be stirred vp to the imitation of vertue.

I doe giue credit to this Author in this point aboue other more ancient Writers, especially strangers: the rather, for that he by the Commandement of Sixtus Quintus a Pope, hath written the Popes liues, and that at Rome, where he was furnished with many helpes of ancient Monuments, to finde out the truth of matters that passed in the Citie, and in Italie: which others wanting, as appeareth, did receiue nothing but vncertain reports, and scattered rumours of men, (who many times report that to be done, which they would faine haue done) for a certaine and cleere truth. If Platina had in silence passed ouer the former part of the storie, surely hee had confirmed as it were by a secret consent, the opinion of these men, who haue otherwise written of Gregorie. But seeing that hee was not ignorant that they had written so, (being a man much conuersant in those stories) and yet notwithstanding doth with a plaine contradiction impugne their opinion, it is very probable, that hee had farre better and more assured testimonies in the relation of those things which were done by this Pope. Wherefore it seemeth more reasonable, and more agreeable to the truth, to follow Platina in this matter, and to note a lie in the writings of Zonaras, (seeing it is prooued in experience, that they are deceiued many times, who from the relation of others doe commit to writing the sayings and doings of people that liued farre from them) then to blot the innocent life of an excellent Pope, with a filthie spot of iniustice and rebellion. For albeit it bee true, that according to his spirituall authoritie ouer all, hee might worthily excommunicate this Emperour; yet he might not prohibit, that the people, being subiect to the Romane Empire, should not giue tribute to Cesar, or pay their customes to the Emperour, so long as he continued Emperour, without the manifest breach of the [Page] Law of God, and of the Doctrine of the Gospell. And it is certaine that this Leo, although impious, continued Cesar vnto his death, not deposed from his Empire either by the people, or by the Pope. Therefore I say, that it is false which the Magdeburgers Centuriators doe write, that this Pope, who was famous both for Doctrine and life, was a Traitour to his Country. I say also, that it is false which Bellarmine propounds in the former example, that the Pope did set a Fine or Mulct vpon Leo Isaurus Iconumachus, to a part of his Empire: for hee practised no mischiefe, as appeareth by this storie of Platina, neither against the Country, nor against the Prince. Now followeth the sixth.

CHAP. XLI.

THe sixth is of Zacharie, saith hee, who being desired by the Nobilitie of France, deposed Childerique, and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus, to be created King in his place.

Before I speake any thing of this example, it is worth my paines, to vnfold the darke storie touching the same, and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie, ioining the circumstances on both sides, together with the opinion, for proofe whereof it is brought: and by this meane it may more easily appeare to the Reader, how small strength it hath to confirme the proposition of the aduersaries.

First of all therefore, in that story it is worthy the obseruation, that Childerique and diuers other Meroningians, that were Kings before him, raigning without any authoritie at all in their Kingdomes, had nothing but the vaine and idle name of a King. For the treasure and power of the State were in the hands of the Officers, who were called the Maiors of the Palace, and who indeede swaied the whole gouernment of the Kingdome: who were so much aboue the Kings, and ordered and gouerned them, as the [Page] King possessed nothing of his owne, besides the idle name of the King, and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life, which the Maior of the Palace made him in his discretion, but one poore Lordship in the Country, of a small reuenew, and in that a house, where hee kept a few seruants to attend him for his necessarie seruices, and to wait vpon him: as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemaine.

If any then doe looke more neerely into the matter, he shall finde, that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France: one, who like the King in the [...]hesse, had onely the name of a King, but no kingly authoritie, as Atmoinus speaketh: but the other, who was called the Maior of the Palace, in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdome. He in name onely was vnder the King, but in authoritie and power ouer the King; so as he wanted nothing but the name, for the full and absolute Maiestie of ruling and raigning, which also at the last was giuen him by the people, that the soueraigne gouernment which he swaied, might be signified by the title of a soueraigne honour. Therfore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel, father of Pipine, who ouerthrew a huge Armie of Saracens, rushing into France out of Spaine: King Charles saith hee, hauing beaten and ouercome the armies of his enemies, vnder Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victorie, returned home in safetie into France, the seat of his gouernment. Marke how he calles the Maior of the palace a King, by reason of that royall authority which he bare.

Secondly, in that storie is to bee obserued, that the Nobilitie of France, being weary of the slothfulnesse of their idle Kings, did with a wonderfull consent conuert their eies and hearts to Pipine Maior of the Palace, sonne to Charles; which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdome, that hee openly, without nicenesse, affected the name of a King: which that hee might more easily compasse, without mislike and displeasure of the Commons, he resolued, that the Pope was first to be dealt withall by an Embassadour, and his assent to be required; iudging [Page] indeede, as the truth was, that if the Pope should giue his assent, that the Commons would easily rest in his iudgement, by reason of the holinesse and reuerend opinion of the See Apostolique.

Thirdly, we must vnderstand, that Zacharie the Pope was generally aduised withall in the cause of the Kings, which raigned at that time in France, whether ought to bee called King, he who had only the name of a King, and no royall authoritie, or he who by his industrie and wisdome did manage and gouerne all the affaires of the State: and that hee the same Pope answered generally againe, that it were better that he should be called King, in whom the soueraigne authoritie did reside; by which answer the Nobilitie being induced, doe elect Pipine King. There is no question, but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi, that is, in particular, that Childerique was to bee abandoned, who carried onely the false name of a King, and that Pipine was in his place to bee aduanced to the Crowne. But I suppose that hee answered so generally, for that the proposition being deliuered in generall tearmes, carried no note of any certaine person, and left to the Nobilitie of France their iudgement entire and free, to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique, but gaue his assent with the Deposers. But because his consent was especially regarded, therfore certaine Historians doe precisely say, that hee deposed Childerique.

Lastly, in that storie it must be seriously and diligentlie weighed, that Zacharie the Pope, hauing heard Pipinus his Embassadours, touching the change of the Kingdome, and deposition of Childerique, iudged it to bee a matter of such noueltie, and difficultie also, as at the first hee durst not entertaine the thought of so great an enterprise, although that by this time he had vnderstood sufficiently, that the sloth and idlenesse of the Merouingians did greatly endammage the Church and Christian [Page] Common-wealth, vntill such time as hee was certainely perswaded and saw, that the whole nobility of France did fauour Pipin, and desire him for their King, and moreouer, that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merouingians without children, so dull and blockish, That he could not tell how to grieue for the losse of his kingdome, as was fit for him, neither was there any that would mone his case. These were the inducements, which being ioined with a speciall loue & affection, which the Pope did beare to Pipine (for that he and his father Charles, had with many good offices deserued well of the Church of Rome and Apostolicke Sea,) did moue Zacharie to essent to the French, who desired this change of their Kings.

These things although they be in this manner written touching this businesse, yet haue we great cause to doubt of the iustice of that fact. I know that Bellarmine in other places out of too much good opinion of the equity of this fact of Zachary, doth boldly affirme, that no sober man wil deny that that Act was iust. But he alledgeth nothing, but that the wisest man liuing may affirm for all that, that it was iniust. I say he brings no probable and forcible reason, whereby a wise man may perswade himselfe, that the Pope did iustly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke, since that in no case, we ought to doe ill, that good although it be very great may come thereof. Now wee haue sufficienly declared, that for a lawfull King to bee deposed by his owne subiects, or to consent to the deposers, seeing hee hath God onely aboue him, to whome onely he is bound to yeeld account of his actions, is by it selfe, and simply euill. And the two reasons which he vseth to iustifie the iustice of that deposition, are so vncertaine and friuolous, that I wonder that they were ouer propounded by him. For first, in that he measures the equity of this fact of Zachary by the euent of the [Page] businesse, as though the action must be accounted iust, because that change of the Kingdome had prosperous and happy successe, (especially, saith he, since the euent doth teach, that that change was most happy.) it is so triuiall and childish, that it was not to be conceiued, much lesse alleadged in writing by such a man,

—Careat successibus opto,

Quisquis ab euentu facta not anda putes.

For what I pray you? Was not afterwards in the same Kingdome of France the change from the Carolouingi [...] to the Capeuingii made with great iniustice? For Hugo Capet a man of a great mind, and might in the state, when none was able to represse or encounter his practises, vsurped the Kingdom by force & arms, & obtained the crown, taking the true heire, and casting him into prison. For which fact Gaguinus calleth him an vsurper of the Kingdome. And yet all the world doth know that that change was most happy, and as some thinke, done by the secrete iudgement of God, that Pipine who had wrongfully taken the Kingdome from the Merouingij, should at the last suffer the like wrong in his posterity. Therefore the Carolouingians did not so long hold the Kingdome, if they bee compared with the Capeuingians. And the Capeuingians haue the gouernement much longer established in their house, and as J hope will haue for euer.

The second reason also, is no whit stronger which he draweth from the holinesse of Boniface the Bishoppe, who at the commandement of Zacharie anointed and crowned Pipine King. Adde, saith he, to these, that hee who anointed and crowned King Pipine by the Popes commandement, was a most holy man, viz. B. Boniface Bishoppe and Martyr, who surely would neuer haue beene the auther of iniustice, and of a publicke offence. This I say is a very light argument, and of no waight. For in that businesse Boniface was onely a Minister of the Apostolicke [Page] commaundement, and therefore it was no preiudice to his holinesse, which he executed at the Popes commaundement: for he was bound to execute the Popes sentence, Cap. Pastorall §. quia vero de off. tud. del g. although he knew it to be iniust: and therefore although the iniustice of the commaundement had made Zacharie guilty, yet Boniface had beene declared to bee innocent by the order of seruing, and necessity of obedience Can quid [...]ulpatur. 23. q. 1. can. miles. 23 q. 5. Therefore Boniface might with a safe conscience fulfill the commaundement of Zacharie, though it were iniust. But this Zacharie was a good Pope. It may bee so, wee denie it not, so was Dauid a good King, and holy, and Theodosius a good Emperour: Marcellinus and Liberius were both good Popes, and yet not one of these but committed some things worthy of blame. Why then might not Zacharie also serue his owne malice or loue, and after the manner of men in some part violate iustice? It is well knowne that Zacharie in those times did stand in extream need of Pipines aid, against the iniuries of Aistulphus & the Longobardes; and was not that a strong engine to batter iustice, thinke you? loue, hatred, and a proper gaine, make that a Iudge many times doth not know A [...]tot. lib. [...]. R [...]et. ad Theode [...]en. Cap. 1. the truth.

But to striue no longer about the equity of this act of Zacharie, let it bee as they would haue it, let vs grant that that Act was most iust: what strength doe they winne by this, to make good the temporall authority which they giue to the Pope ouer Princes? is it any more, then that by the patterne of that action, the Pope may now doe, as then Zacharie did? which is, that hee may giue his consent to a people for the like causes & respects to put down their king? that is to say, if he bee a King, that hath onely the Name, and not the authority or power of a King, who also hath no issue, like to die in orbitie, and of mind so slothfull and so blockish, that hee may bee deposed without any [Page] bloudshed, and of a Prince may bee made a priuate person, no man moaning his fortune, no man following his party. For an argument from an example is nothing, vnlesse the cases and causes be alike in each respect. Therfore this example of Zacharie, What maketh it to establish that infinite authority, wheron the Popes relying in the following ages, haue attempted, and sometimes gloried that they could vndertake mighty Kings, abounding in all manner of wealth, excelling in strength both of mind and body, not at the request of the people, nor by consent onely, but of their proper motion, by warres, by murther, by Schismes, by great miseries of the Christian common-wealth, to depriue them of their Kingdomes, and to spoile them of their crownes and scepters? Will any wise man iudge that this is lawfull for them to doe, by the example of Zacharias his Act? But of this matter enough.

CHAP. XLII.

THe death of the Author enuied vs this last part of the Booke.

Information about this book

Title statement

Certain general reasons, prouing the lawfulnesse of the Oath of allegiance, written by R.S. priest, to his priuat friend. Whereunto is added, the treatise of that learned man, M. William Barclay, concerning the temporall power of the pope. And with these is ioyned the sermon of M. Theophilus Higgons, preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March last, because it containeth something of like argument

Sheldon, Richard, d. 1642?

Edition statement

1611

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A68730

ID [STC]

STC 22393

ID [STC]

ESTC S117169

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99852384

ID [PROQUEST]

99852384

ID [VID]

17700

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A68730)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 17700)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 694:6, 938:2)

Source

— Certain general reasons, prouing the lawfulnesse of the Oath of allegiance, written by R.S. priest, to his priuat friend. Whereunto is added, the treatise of that learned man, M. William Barclay, concerning the temporall power of the pope. And with these is ioyned the sermon of M. Theophilus Higgons, preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March last, because it containeth something of like argument, Sheldon, Richard, d. 1642?, Barclay, William, 1546 or 7-1608. De potestate Papæ. English., Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659. Sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March, 1610., Barclay, John, 1582-1621..

Extent

[12], 77, [3]; [14], 229, [3]; 60 p.

Imprinted by Felix Kyngston [and Arnold Hatfield], for William Aspley,. At London :: 1611.. (Signed on ¹L3r: Richard Sheldon.) ("Guil. Barclaii I.C. Of the authoritie of the pope", an edited translation by John Barclay of "De potestate Papæ", has separate pagination and title page with imprint ".. imprinted by Arnold Hatfield ..". Kingston printed the first two quires of this part (STC). "A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March 1610. By Theophilus Higgons", reprinted from STC 13456, has separate dated title page and pagination.) (Part 2 identified as STC 1409 on UMI microfilm reel 694.) (Reproductions of the originals in Cambridge University Library.) (Appears at reel 694 and at reel 938.) (Reel 938: lacking ¹C2.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.