GVIL. BARCLAII J. C.  
OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE: WHETHER, AND HOW far FORTH, he hath power and authority over Temporal Kings and Princes, Liber posthumus.  
AT LONDON Imprinted by ARNOLD HATFIELD, for William Aspley. 1611.   

TO THE MOST HOLY FATHER AND LORD, CLEMENT the 8. Pope: W. Barclay wisheth health.  
IF Rome, from Peter to this day, had seen such Bishops as your Holiness is (most High Father and Prelate of Christians) there had been no place for this Question at this time. Your Moderation and Gentleness, answerable to your Name, either had not opened any gap to this Business, or had barred the same by some grave Provision, that it should not be opened. I have here discussed the Question, touching the Temporal authority of your See over Kings and Princes; which having been canvased with so great Troubles, and so much Blood, hath as oft afflicted the Church, as the Princes themselves: I have also dedicated the same to you, lest I might seem either to have shunned your judgement, or to have managed rather the Cause of the Kings, then of the Church. If I have not pleased every man's taste, I desire them to consider, That no Medicine brings Health without bitterness. It is peradventure an odious argument to such as be scrupulous, or malicious, to pervert my sense and meaning: which not withstanding, most Holy Father, I have undertaken, partly out of the love of the Truth, partly also, for that, I have been of opinion, that this Authoritic is the fountain of all those tempests, wherewith Heresy tosseth your ship at this day.  
Pope julius the 2. being alienated with a sudden unkindness, did not only thunder against Lewes the 12. King of France, but also deprived john King of Navarre of his kingdom, because he assisted the French. And out of question Lewes his good fortune put by that Thunderbolt from France: but the Navarrois' hearing the Spaniard of one side, and being excluded on the other side by the Mountains of Pyrene from the help of France, was not able to make his part good against the fury of Rome, and the ambition of Spain. Being spoiled of the greater part of his kingdom, he retired into France, where he had a large and ancient Patrimony. In the neck of this came the fire which Luther kindled, and the Heirs of john, King of Navarre, inflamed with their private hatred, did very soon pass to that side, which bandied against the See of Rome. Therefore came Heresy first to be scattered thorough France, by the partiality of those Princes, which through the fiaming fire, and after through wars, hath continued to this day. As for Henry 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 Authority? Clemens the 7. had denounced Henry deprived of the Right and Interest of his Kingdoms: and he again conceived an anger, which peradventure was not unjust of his part, but blind and intemperate. He opened England to Heretics by the occasion of this schism, who afterwards growing strong under Edward the 6, destroyed the ancient Religion. Again, Scotland affected with the Neighbourhood and Communion of England, having held out under james the 5, at length was attainted in the beginning of Mary's reign, and presently after infected, when the poison had gathered further strength.  
So what Heresy or Heretics soever are in France and Britanny at this day (which is their only strong hold) was conceived and hatched by this lamentable warmth of the Temporal Authothoritie, as a pestilent egg. Behold, most holy Father, how little good it doth the Church to challenge this Command, which like Scianus his Horse hath ever cast his Masters to the ground. Therefore have I undertaken this work, out of my affection to Religion and Truth, not to the Princes, and of a sincere and humble mind have presented the same to you the Chief Pastor, to whom it appertaineth to judge of leper and leper.  
If there be any thing in these writings, which you shall think good and profitable, I shall comfort my Old age with the most sweet remembrance of so great a Witness. But if allowing my affection, yet you shall not allow my judgement, it shall be to posterity an argument of your Moderation, that under you the simple liberty of Disputation hath not been prejudicial to any. Let this be an argument of your Moderation, but never of my Obstinacy. For whatsoever is in this business I leave it to your Censure, that in this book I may seem not so much to have delivered, what I think, as to have inquired of your Holiness, what I ought to think.  
Fare you well.   

The contents of the several chapters contained in this Book.  

Chap. 1. THe Author professeth his Catholic disposition to the See of Rome, and his sincerity in the handling of this question. The opinion of the Divines and Canonists touching the Pope's authority in temporal matters, and particularly touching Bozius a Canonist.  
Chap. 2. Of the different natures of the Ecclesiastical and Temporal powers, and a taxation of Bozius his sophistry touching the same.  
Chap. 3. That the Apostles practised no temporal jurisdiction, but rather enjoined Obedience to be given even to Heathen Princes; and a comparison between the ambition and usurpation of the later Popes, and humility of the ancient.  
Chap. 4. That the later Popes served themselves of two advantages to draw to themselves this vast authority Temporal over Princes: viz. partly through the great reverence which was borne to the See of Rome, partly through the terror of the Thunder bolt of Excommunication.  
Chap. 5. That it cannot be proved by any authority, either Divine or human, that the Pope either directly or indirectly hath any Temporal authority over any Christian Princes.  
Chap. 6. That no instance can be given of any Popes of higher times, that any such authority was usurped and practised by them: and a vehement deploration of the miserable condition of these later times, in regard of the modesty and piety of the former.  
Chap. 7. An answer made to an excuse pretended by Bellarmine, that the ancient Church could not without much hurt to the people, coerce and chastise the old Emperors and Kings, and therefore forbore them more, than now she need to do.  
Chap. 8. That the ancient Church wanted neither skill nor courage, to execute any lawful power upon evil Princes, but she forbore to do it, in regard she knew not any such power over them.  
Chap. 9 That it is a false ground laid by Bellarmine, that Henry the 4. Emperor, and other Christian Princes, upon whom the Popes have practised their pretended temporal authority, might be dealt withal more securely than the former Princes.  
Chap. 10. The censure of the worthy Bishop frisingen's. upon the course which Gregory the 7. took against Henry the 4. Emperor, and the issue thereof how lamentable to the Church, and unfortunate to the Pope himself.  
Chap. 11. A reason supposed for the tolerancie and connivency of the ancient Popes, and the vanity thereof discovered.  
Chap. 12. That the Pope hath no authority, not so much as indirectly over Christian Princes in temporal matters, proved both by the special prerogatives of an absolute Prince, and also by the grounds of the Catholics, and the inconveniencies ensuing of the admittance thereof.  
Chap. 13. He undertakes Bellarmine his proofs, propounds his first main reason, with the Media, whereby Bellarmine enforceth the same.  
Chap. 14. He taketh away the ground which Bellarmine laid for the strengthening of his first Proposition, and layeth open the lightness and vanity thereof.  
Chap. 15. He amplifieth the answer to the last ground laid by Bellarmine, and explaineth in what terms of Relation or Subordination the Powers both Civil and Ecclesiastical do stand. Secondly, he showeth that Clergy persons, are as well and fully to be reputed the subjects of Temporal Princes, as Lay men are. Thirdly, that the Clergy first received their Privileges from the favour of Princes, and that the Pope himself, as successor of Peter, must necessarily be subject to a Temporal Prince, but that he is a Temporal Prince in Italy himself, which State also he received at the first by the Bounty of Temporal Princes.  
Chap. 16. He detecteth a plain fallacy in a reason of Bellarmine's, which in Schools is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, addictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and showeth at large, that Temporal Princes have submitted themselves to the Popes as their Spiritual Fathers, but not so absolutely, but that they ever reserved their Civil authority firm, and untouched to themselves.  
Chap. 17. He answereth Bellarmine's second reason, and proveth, that this unlimited power of disposing the Temporalties of Princes is neither belonging, nor necessary for the Church, and that the Church flourished more the first three hundred years without the same authority, than it hath done since certain later Popes usurped the same.  
Chap. 18. He discusseth more at large the sense of Bellarmine his latter argument to prove the Pope's sovereignty over Kings in Temporalties, and bewrays the inconsequence and vanity thereof.  
Chap. 19 He discusseth a passage in S. Bernard, touching the Material sword, and the words of Christ, Ecce duo gl●dij: and concludeth that the Temporal sword, is neither proper to the Pope, nor subject to the Spiritual.  
Chap. 20. He encountereth 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 choose a Heathen Prince, as not to depose him that is not a Christian: but the Elench or fallacy of the whole argument he plainly discovereth.  
Chap. 21. He insisteth further on the point, Whether Christians ought to suffer over them a King that is not a Christian. The text of the 1. Cor. 6. is discussed, Of going to law under infidel Princes, or judges: and Bellarmine his fraud and captiousness discovered in abusing that place to serve his turn. 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 mere Religion and Conscience that kept the Primitive Church in obedience, by Bellarmine's own grounds.  
Chap. 22. He answereth Bellarmine's second main Reason; taxeth the same both for matter in truth, and form in Logic, and gives a right supply to the deficiency of the same, by which the force of the same reason is taken away.  
Chap. 23. He taketh in hand Bellarmine's third argument, which is drawn from a comparison of the bond of Marriage, with the bond of the Obedience due from the subject to the Prince; and both shows how weak it is in itself and how strong against him that brings it.  
Chap. 24. He examineth a fourth Reason of Bellarmine's, taken from the form of an Oath, which Princes are supposed to take when they were received into the Church, and showeth that nothing can be made thereof, to prove Bellarmine's assertion for the Pope's temporal authority over Christian Princes.  
Chap. 25. He examineth the last reason of Bellarmine, grounded on the words of Christ to Peter, Pasce oves meas: the which reason from these words, if it have any edge at all, he turneth the same back upon Bellarmine himself.  
Chap. 26. He proveth that Bellarmine is deceived, or doth deceive of purpose in his reason drawn from the comparison of the Pope as a shepherd, and an heretic Prince as a wolf. 2. What is the duty of the shepherd, in case the Prince do of a sheep become a wolf.  
Chap. 27. He debateth the power of the Pope to dispense: what is the nature of those laws, wherewith the Pope may dispense. But that he hath no colour to dispense with the obedience of a subject to his Prince. The madness of the Canonists that give too vast a fullness 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 have laboured to reconcile, but have miss.  
Chap. 29. But the Author gives the resolution, excusing the Pope's meaning, and blaming the words, to answer the Canonists.  
Chap. 30. That the Pope, although he might dispense with the oath of a Subject, 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 than his Oath. 2. The dangerous consequence to all Christian Princes by this power of the Pope, called Indirect, if he should have it. 3. What the People ought to answer the Pope or his Ministers, in case they should be by them solicited against their lawful 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: proved by miserable experience in Germany, 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 wild Ram, the Pope may correct him, but as a spiritual Pastor, only by spiritual means. 2. That neither the Prince can avoid or decline the Pope's judgement in cases Spiritual, nor any Clergy person the Kings in cases Temporal. 3. That the Clergy received those Exemptions and Immunities, which at this day they enjoy through all Christendom, not from the Pope, nor from Canons of Counsels, but by the bounty and indulgency of secular Princes. 4. The explanation of the Canons of certain famous Counsels, which the adversaries allege in their behalf, and yet upon the matter make rather against them. 5. The notorious corruption practised by Gratianus in perverting the words of two several Canons, flat against the Original, which corruption also Bellarmine very strangely followeth, because it seemeth to make to his purpose.  
Chap. 33. He propoundeth and proveth a paradox of his own; That all the Clergy men in the world, of what degree or rank soever, are subject to the Temporal authority of secular Princes, in those several Countries, wherein they live, and are punishable by the said Princes, as well as other lay subjects, in all cases that are not meerclie Spiritual.  
Chap. 34. He returns to the particular answer of Bellarmine his argument, and showeth, that Excommunication works only so far, as to exclude from the company of the faithful, but not to deprive Princes of any temporal estate.  
Chap. 35. He propoundeth certain reasons of Nicholas Sanders, which had been omitted by Bellarmine, for the establishing of the Pope's temporal authority over 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 angry, or of affection to the then Pope, or some other fume of brain; they have so small colour to prove his purpose.  
Chap. 37. He discusseth other examples, alleged by Bellarmine; and first that of Ozias the King of juda; and herein he taxeth Bellarmine his slight dealing to transcribe out of other men's collections such matters as they have either negligently or maliciously wrested against the direct and pregnant story of the Scriptures, as appeareth in this example.  
Chap. 38. He discusseth another example touching Athalia and joiadas the high Priest, which he showeth to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and nothing attailing to conclude his purpose.  
Chap. 39 He discusseth a third example from Ambrose Bishop of Milan, and Theodosius the Emperor, and maketh it plain how little it makes for the Pope's authority temporal, over Emperors and Kings.  
Chap. 40. He answereth Bellarmine's examples of the latter Popes, first by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or prevention out of Sotus, That the act of Popes makes not an Article of the faith. Secondly, by the testimony of Platina he convinceth the whole story related by Bellarmine, touching Pope Gregory the 2, and Leo the 3 Emperor, of untruth.  
Chap. 41. He answereth another instance of Bellarmine touching Pope Zacharie, and Chilperique King of France; the very explication of which whole business, is refutation sufficient, to frustrate Bellarmine his purpose in alleging the same, to win any temporal authority to Popes over Christian Princes.    

GVIL. BARCLAII. I. C. Of the Authority of the Pope; whether, and how far forth, he hath power and authority over Temporal Kings and Princes, Liber Posthumus.  
MAny men have written of this Argument, especially in our time, diversly and for divers respects: but none more learnedly and clearly, than the most worthy Cardinal and most learned Divine Rob. Bellarmine, in those books, which he hath written of the chief or Roman Bishop. Who as he hath notably proved the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power of the Bishop of Rome; so if he could have confirmed with more sound weight of authorities and reasons, that temporal power, which he affirmeth out of the opinion of certain Divines, that he hath, there were nothing in that Treatise which might justly be reprehended, or required by any man. If therefore many both Divines and Civilians, one after another, have employed themselves in the discussing of this question, and the judgement of the former writers thereof hath been no prejudice to the opinion of them which followed; why should not I also (since I have spent my time in this study) challenge after a sort by a peculiar interest some place in the searching of the truth itself.  
But before I begin to show what I think of this matter, there must some care and diligence be used by me, by way of Provision, Lest either any weak: ones should conceive any scandal, who esteem the Pope to be a God, who hath all power in heaven and earth (that I may use 
a 〈…〉.  Gerson● words) or any aid seem to come to the calumnies of the Novators, wherewith they prosecute the Apostolic sea, that they might deprive the chief Pastor of souls of all his authority. Therefore the Reader must understand thus much that I do bear to that Sea all reverence & good will, neither do go about either here or any where else, to diminish any thing of the power and dignity due to the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, by whose patronage I do piously and plainly persuade myself that I am daily assisted: but that I have this purpose only to search without all guile & deceit, without love and hatred, what and how great that power is, which all Christians ought to acknowledge in the Bishop of Rome, that is, in the chief Bishop and Pope as they call him: and without those assertions, which wrest men's minds to one side or other, that I only have God before mine eyes, lest at the return of the Lord, I be challenged either for the unprofitable employment, or the hiding of my talon.  
Therefore I desire them, who have written before me, of a good mind as I suppose, that they take it not in scorn or anger, if I depart from their opinion. 
b 〈◊〉 111. ad 〈…〉 Deo re●ertur dist 9 can 10.  For (as I may say with S. Augustine) we ought not to esteem every man's disputation, although they be Catholic and praise worthy, as if they were Canonical Scriptures, as though it were not lawful for us, saving the reverence which is due unto them, to mislike and refuse some things in their writings, if perhaps we shall find, that they think otherwise then the truth bears, being by the help of God understood by others or by ourselves. As I myself am in the writings of other men, so would I have the understanding Readers to be in mine, that they would either courteously admit, or with reason reprehend. But to the matter.  
There is amongst Catholics, (for what others think 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 affirm that All rights of heavenly and earthly government are granted by God to the Pope, and that, whatsoever power is in this world, whether Temporal and Civil, or Spiritual and Ecclesiastical is conferred by Christ upon Peter and his successors: to which principle they do easily draw any thing, so often as any disputation ariseth, touching the absolute power, or, as they use to speak, touching the fullness of the power of the Pope. The other is the opinion of certain Divines, who do justly dislike this ground of the Canonists, because it is not clearly proved either by authority of Scripture, nor tradition of Apostles, nor practise of the ancient Church, nor by the doctrine and testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Therefore these do by most sound reasons convince their opinion, I mean of the Canonists: but yet in such manner, as that by the loss of that, the Pope looseeth never a whit the more of his temporal interest and power, but they see that safely bestowed, and do preserve it safe and sound for him. For they hold thus. That the Pope as Pope hath not directly any temporal power, but only Spiritual: but that by reason of the Spiritual he hath at least indirectly a certain power, and that very great, to dispose of the Temporalities of all Christians. And so look what they do allow the Pope, by a direct course, the same do these men give him, by an oblique and indirect means, so as the means only is divers, but the effect is the same.  
For my part, when I consider of this question, I find, that neither of their opinions as touching the temporal power, hath any certain ground: and yet if they be compared together, that the canonists opinion may more easily be maintained then the Divines: especially seeing it is not contrary to the order of nature, according to which a man by his right exerciseth authority granted unto him over others, and therefore, it contains nothing unpossible. But the opinion of the Divines, as it is propounded by their own side, overturns the natural course of things, which willeth, that no man use any power or authority over 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 Divines do indeed very well refute the opinion of the Canonists, but for all that, with their leave, they think not a whit the better themselves: whereby a man may see, how much more easy it is to find an untruth in other men's writings, then to defend a truth in his own.  
There is also even amongst themselves a contention touching this point. For many of them have joined themselves with the Canonists, either for that they are deceived with a show of truth: or that bearing too much, and that a very blind affection to Peter's Sea, (which indeed is worthy all honour) they would also grace it with this title of Power and Dignity: or being obliged by some special favours of the Popes, have by this endeavour of thankfulness desired to draw their good opinions close to themselves, I will not say, to gain them through this unreasonable flattery of theirs. And amongst these is one, who being lately sprung out of the Congregation of the Oratrie, hath stepped forth as a 
* Th●. Bozim.  sharp Abettour for the Canonists above other men. Whom therefore 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; he called him a Pope's parasite. For in his books he doth earnestly maintain, That all Kingly power and authority, and Lordship of all things which are in earth, are given to the Bishop of Rome, by the Law of God, and that what power soever wheresoever in the world temporal Kings and Princes, aswell believing, as unbelieving have, doth wholly depend of the Pope; and so far as concerns temporal execution is derived from him to them: So that he as the Lord of the whole world, may give and take kingdoms and principalities to whom and where he will, although no man knows why he doth so. And therefore (saith he) he might adjudge and bequeath the West Indies of Castille, and the East Indies of Portugal, although all men understand not the coherence of the reason, whereby they were disposed as we said before.  
And therefore being emboldened with a confidence of maintaining this opinion, he doth grievously accuse many excellent Divines, amongst whom is that worthy man Bellarmine, who can never worthily be commended, & 
d Lib. 2. cap. 1●.  calls them new Divines, & affirmeth, 
e Lib. 5. cap. ult.  That they teach matters, that be notoriously false, and contrary to all truth: because they say, that Christ as man was not a temporal king, neither had any temporal dominion in earth, nor exercised any kingly power, (for by these assertions the principal foundations of Bozius his dotages are overthrown:) when as these great Divines affirm that they are most true and confirmed by the own testimony of our Saviour: The Foxes (saith he) have 
* Matth. 8. Luk. 9  holes, and the birds of heaven nests, but the Son of man hath no where to lay his head. Where then is his kingdom? where is his Temporal dominion? who can conceive and imagine that there is a king or a Lord, who hath neither kingdom nor Lordship in the universal world. We know that Christ as he is the Son of God, is King of glory, the King of Kings, the Lord of heaven and earth, and of all things reigning everlastingly together with the Father & the holy Spirit. But what is this to a Temporal kingdom? What is this to a crown and sceptre of a temporal Majesty? Certainly I have perused all that Bozius hath delivered to this purpose: but I have not found any sound reason for the confirming of his purpose, nothing that was not corrupted with the mixture of fallaries, and sophistication, nothing grounded upon ancient and approved authorities, nothing but depraved with a gloss of a devised interpretation. Before this time Henricus Segutianus, Cardinal of Hostia, was entangled with the same error, whose new and strange opinion at that time, is thought within a while after to have inflamed beyond all measure, as it were with new firebrands of ambition Boniface the 8. a man exceeding desirous of glory. But the case is at this time very well altered, because that opinion of Hostiensis, (which afterwards the Canonists followed, & Bozius now embraceth) is upon very grounded reason condemned by certain Divines, And also for that the Church of God hath at this day such a chief Bishop, I mean Clement the eight, who showeth himself to the world so excellent and admirable, not only in piety & learning, but also in humility, justice, charity, and other virtues, worthy so great a Pastor: that we need not fear lest such a Bishop should be so stirred and infected with a vain opinion, which is underpropped only with fooleries, and snares of words, that he should challenge to himself any thing, which of due belonged not unto him. Neither had Bozius offered so rash assertions to so great a Bishop, but that impudency dare do anything. It were time ill spent to touch severally upon all his errors and fopperies. Only lest I should seem for mine own pleasure only to have found fault with the man, I will lay before you one instance of his foolish and quirking dealing, that the Reader may judge of the beast by his Loose.   

CHAP. II.  
FIrst of all we must understand, that those two powers, whereby the world is kept in order, I mean, the Ecclesiastical and the Civil, are so by the law of God distinguished and separated, (that although they be both 
Rom. 13.  of God) each of them being included in his bounds, can not by any right enter upon the borders of the other, and neither have power over the other, as 
a Can. duo sunt can. cum ad verum 96. dist. cap. novit. de iudic. cap. per ve. nerabilem, qui filii sunt legit.  S. Bernard truly and sweetly teacheth in his first book, de Consider. ad Eugenium: 
b Cap. 6.  and amongst the later Divines, john Driedo. 
c Lib. 2. de liber Christ. cap. 2.  And the worthy Hosius Bishop of Corduba, writing to the Emperor Constantine, an Arrian, doth evidently declare the same difference of these two powers: whose opinion is set down in this manner, in a letter of S. Athanasius, written to them which lead a solitary life: God hath committed a government to you: to us he hath entrusted the matters which belong to the Church: and as he who with envious eyes maligneth your government, doth resist the divine ordinance, so take you heed least by drawing to yourself those things which belong to the Church, you prove guilty of a great fault: It is written, Give to Caesar, those things which be Caesar's, and to God, which are Gods 
* Matth. 22. Mark. 12. . Therefore neither is it lawful for us to exercise an earthly empire, nor you being Emperor, have any power over our sacrifices and holy things. From hence it is, I mean from this distinction of powers, that Innocentius and Panormitanus do conclude, that 
d In c●p inquisitions de sent. excom.  Lay-men are not bound to obey the Pope in those things which are not Spiritual, or which concern not the soul, as they speak: unless they live in those territories, which be subject to the temporal jurisdiction 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, etc. I promise and swear true obedience, when he is of the Laity that sweareth.  
Bozius notwithstanding denieth this distinction of these powers: and affirmeth full undiscreetly, that the temporal is contained under the Ecclesiastical, and is directly subject to it. But he perceived that which was pressed with the evident confession of the holy Bishop, Nicolas 1. who in a letter to Michael the Emperor, teacheth, that although in times past 
e Dict. can. cum ad verum 96. dist.  Heathen Emperors were called the chief Bishops, yet when it came to the true King and Bishop, neither did the Emperor draw to himself the interest of the Bishop, nor she Bishop usurped the name of the Emperor: because the same Mediator of God and men. the man Christ jesus, did so by their proper functions, and several privileges distinguish the duties of both the powers, willing that his proper offices should be advanced by a wholesome humility, not by human pride be again drowned into hell, that both Christian emperors might stands in need of Bishops for eternal life, and Bishops might use imperial laws for the course of temporal things only, etc.  
Therefore when as he saw by the testimony of a chief Bishop, that both the Powers were so disjoined and severed by their proper acts, dignities, and duties, that neither the temporal power might without injury usurp the rights of the Spiritual power, nor contrary: this fine witted gentleman, that he might unwind himself out of this brake, he slips me into a blind turning of an interpretation, which was never heard of before: wherein he shows himself very ridiculous, nor so cunning in inventing, as unadvised in delivering the same. * But we must mark, saith he, in these words of Nicclaus: first, that he doth not affirm, that the Say power is severed from the Spiritual, that an Ecclesiastical power may not have it, but that a Secular man may not have an Ecclesiastical power: therefore he saith that these powers are distinguished, not all together, as though one were not subordinate and subject to the other, but he affirmeth that they are distinguished by their Offices, Actions and dignity: and with all when he had said, neither did the Emperor draw to himself the Privileges of the Bishopric, he said not again, the Bishop drew not to himself the privileges of the Emperor. He saith not, the Privileges, or Rights, as Navarra, in Cap. Novit. hath reported falsely, nor as I think, marking what he said: but saith Nomen, the name.  
What should a man do with such a mitching birdcatcher of words: who a man would think studied to make Pope Nicolas, not a Pastor, but an impostor, and that he should seem not to instruct, but to mock the Emperor, for what I pray you? was this conference between the Pope and the Emperor, of words, 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 doubtfulness, or change of a word, he might entrap the Emperor, and not rather, that he might instruct him by a plain discourse of truth? It is a speech of a good conceit, 
i 1 L. 2. C. cov. de legate.  that laws are imposed by deeds, and not by words: and this letter, is in a manner, as an Ecclesiastical law. What then Nicolaus saith: Neither did the Bishop usurp the name of the Emperor, it is as much as if he had said, he usurped not the Right, or the Rights of the Emperor, which Navarrus the most learned both Canonist and Divine, observing, and others of all ages, that were exercised in those knowledges, have taken Nomen and jura 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. 
k L. S●re leges. D. de legib.  This is not to know the laws, to understand their words, and not their force and meaning.  
But this interpretation of Bozius is refelled by this, that the Pope by these words as the Pagan Emperors were also called the chief Bishops, that is, (named) did not mean an empty and a bare name, as though Emperors, were only 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 Emperors of these and those times, is in that place designed by Nicolaus, or by the name of the Emperor, that he understands all the Imperial right: that as after Christ acknowledged and received, the Emperors assumed not to themselves any more the rights of the Bishopric, so neither Bishops the rights of Emperors. To conclude, if the Pope had in this place signified, that he refused only the name of the Emperor, but retained the right and power: might not the Emperor justly reply, that he stands not so much upon the Name, as upon the Right? what should he do with the Name, if another carry away his Right and Power? he had certainly said it, neither would he have put up so foul an indignity, if he had believed that any such thing might be gathered, out of Pope Nicolas his words.  
But saith Bozius, he said not their powers were (wholly) distinguished. I confess, and that not without special care, lest he should give to the Pope's flatterers, or any other busy Companions an easy occasion of Cavil and Exception. For Bozius would interpret that word, (call together) as far as belonged to Execution: therefore he spoke more and more plainly, to wit, that those powers are severed and parted, in their proper Actions, Offices and Dignities, that he might manifestly show, that by no mean they are joined together, and that one is not subject to the other, although both of them may concur in the same person. For the same person may be both a temporal Prince and a Bishop: but neither as a Pope can he challenge to himself, the actions, offices, dignities and other rights of Temporal things, nor as a Prince of Spiritual. If therefore these powers be joined together, neither in dignities, offices, nor actions, let Bozius tell us wherein they are joined? If he say, in that because one is subordinate and subject 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 only in actions, and so this opinion of Pope Nicolaus should be false, for dignity and office, which is in the Person subordinated, cannot but be in the Person, which doth subordinate, seeing it is derived from him into the Person subordinated. Hence it is, that the Prince takes himself to be wronged, while his Ministers are hindered in the execution of their offices? and the Pope thinketh himself and his Sea Apostolic to be contemned, if any Contempt be offered to the authority of his Legate, sent by him. But all things, and Persons are proclaimed to be free, and not subject, unless the contrary be proved. And if these things be so, it is very ridiculous, and a mere fancy of Bozius his brain, that he says, how it appears by the former speeches of Pope Nicolaus. That he doth not affirm, the Lay power to be disjoined from the Spiritual so as a Person Ecclesiastical may not have it: but that a temporal Person may not have an Ecclesiastical. For where can this appear? seeing in that letter, there is not one word to be seen, whereby that may be gathered in any probability. And hitherto have I said enough of this Bozius his error. And I am persuaded that no man is so mad, that in the determination of this business, touching the distinction of these powers, will not give 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 endeavoureth to revive being now laid asleep, and almost extinguished, seemeth in these days to the learned so absurd, and that it is refuted and overthrown, with so many and so clear reasons, that now a man need not fear lest any be inveigled and overtaken therewith. For first it is certain, that neither Bozius nor all his abetors, although they wear & wrest the sacred writings, and works of the fathers never so much, shall ever be able to produce any certain testimony, whereby that same temporal jurisdiction and power of the Pope, which they dream on, over Princes and people of the whole world may be plainly confirmed.  
Nay but not so much as any token or print of any such temporal power delivered by hand from the Apostles and their successors can be found, from the passion of Christ, for seven hundred, nay I may say for a thousand years. For which cause, the most learned Bellarmine in the refutation of this opinion doth very wittily and shortly use this strange reason: If it were so saith he (that 
* Lib. 5. de Rome Pont. cap. 3.  the Pope be temporal Lord of the whole world,) that should 
Lib. 5. de Rom. 〈◊〉. ●ap 3.  plainly appear by the Scriptures, or surely out of the tradition of the Apostles. Out of the Scriptures we have nothing but that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Pope, of the keys of the kingdom of the earth, there is no mention, and the adversaries bring forth no tradition of the Apostles. The which matters, and with all, the great division about this matter between the Divines and the Canonists, and of each of them one with another, maketh that this question of the temporal power of the Pope, seemeth very doubtful and uncertain, and wholly to consist without any ground, in the opinion and conceit of men: and therefore, that the truth thereof is to be searched and sisted out by the light of reason, & sharpness of arguments: and that it is no matter of faith, as they speak, to think 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 own part, although I do with heart, and mouth profess, that the chief Bishop, and prelate of the city of Rome, (as being the 
* See the admonition to the reader.  Vicar of Christ, & the lawful successor of S. Peter, yea the universal and supreme pastor of the Church) is endued with spiritual power over all christian Kings, and Monarches, and that he hath, and may exercise over them the power to bind, and loose, which the Scripture doth witness that it was given to the Apostle Peter over all souls: yet notwithstanding I am not therefore persuaded that I should alike believe, that he comprehendeth secular Kings and Princes with in his temporal jurisdiction, or when they do offend against God or Men, or otherwise abuse their office, that he may in any sort abrogate their government, and take their Sceptres away, and bestow them on others: or indeed in a word, that he hath any right or jurisdiction temporal over any lay-people, of what condition or order, and rank so ever they be: unless he shall purchase the same by Civil and lawful means: For as much as I have observed that the opinion which affirmeth the same, hath been assayed indeed and attempted by divers, but hitherto could never be proved of any sufficient and strong reason, and for the contrary opinion much more weighty and more certain reasons may be brought. For my part in regard of the zeal I bear to the Sea Apostolic, I could wish with all my heart, that it might be proved by certain and undoubted arguments that this right belongs unto it, being very ready to incline to that part, to which the weightier reason, and authority of truth do sway. But now let us come nearer to the disputation itself.  
That it is evidently false, that the Pope hath authority and rule over Kings and Princes, it is certain, even by this; that it were an absurd thing, and unjust to say that heathen Princes are received by the Church, in harder and worse terms, than other particular men of the commons whosoever: or that the Pope hath at this day greater power civil over christian Princes, then in times past S. Peter & the rest of the Apostles, had over every private man, that was a child of the Church: but they in those times had never any right or power temporal over christian lay-people, therefore neither hath the Pope now a days any temporal power over secular Princes. The assumption is prooned by this: because it is most certain that in the time of the Apostles, the Ecclesiastical power was wholly severed from the civil, (I do not hereweigh Bozius' fooleries), and that this civil power was wholly in the hands of heathen Princes out of the Church. In somuch as the Apostles themselves, were within the temporal jurisdiction of the heathen, and that both Albert Pighius and 
m job. 5. ca 7. Hierar. Eccl. l. b. 1. de 'pon. Rom. cap. 29.  Robert Bellarmine and ● other notable Divines do ingenuously confess. For Christ came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfil it: Nor to destroy the laws of nature and nations, or to exclude any person out of the temporal government of his estate. Therefore as before his coming. Kings ruled their subjects by a civil power, so also after that he was come, and gone again from us into heaven, they retained still the self 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 subject to the authority and jurisdiction of heathen Princes, (which can not be denied,) and the Lord hath no where expressly and by name need them from the obligation of the law of nature and of nations, it doth follow necessarily, that even after the Apostleship, they continued under the same yoke, seeing it could no way hinder the preaching, and propagation of the Gospel. For although, they had been freed by our Saviour his warrant, what I pray you, had this exemption availed them to the sowing of the Gospel? or what could those few and poor men have done more, being in conscience loosed from the band of temporal jurisdiction, then if they were left in their first estate of obedience? seeing that that privilege of liberty, (if they had obtained any such thing,) had been hindered and frustrated by the servile and unjust courses of unbelieving Princes and people. But it appeareth both by their doctrine and practice, that they themselves were subject to Princes, like other citizens: for that can not be laid in their dish, whereof Christ challengeth the Scribes and the pharisees, that they did one thing and taught an other. Now they taught christians that the subjection and obedience, whereof we speak, is to be given to Kings and Princes 
* At Rom. 13. : for which cause Paul himself appealed to Caesar, and willed all christians to be subject to the temporal 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 speak of the temporal power of secular Princes, but of power in general, that every one should be subject to his superior, the civil person, to the civil, the ecclesiastical to the ecclesiastical, it is a mere cavil, and an answer unworthy of learned men and Divines. Seeing in that time there was commonly no other jurisdiction acknowledged amongst men than the civil and temporal: and the Apostle inspired with the spirit of God, so penned his Epistles, as that he did not only instruct them, that were converted to the Faith, and admonish them of their duty, lest they should think that they were so redeemed by Christ his blood, as that they were not bound any longer to yield obedience to any Civil power, (which conceit was now wrongfully settled in the minds of certain persons, relying upon the honour, and privilege of the name of a Christian) but also that he might give the Heathen and Infidels to understand, that Christian religion doth take no man's interest from him, neither is it in any manner contrary to the temporal authority and power of Kings and Emperors. Therefore it is clear, that in that place the Apostle ought to be understood, of the Temporal power only, because at that time, as hath been said, there was no other authority acknowledged: and in that sense have the ancient Fathers ever interpreted the Apostle in this place: whereupon S. Austin in the exposition of that place, confesseth that himself and by consequent in his person all the Prelates of the Church are subject to the Temporal power: whose words, because they bring great light to this disputation, I will set down entire as they lie. Now for that he saith, Let every soul be subject 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 liberty, being made a Christian, should be lifted up into pride, and not think that in the course of this life that he is to keep his rank, neither suppose that he is not to submit himself, to the higher powers, to whom the government is committed for the time in Temporal affairs, for seeing we consist of mind and body, as long as we are in this temporal life, and use temporal things for the helping of this life, it behoveth for that part, which belongs to this life to be subject to powers, that is, to men, who in place and honour do manage worldly matters. But of that part whereby we believe in God, and are called into his kingdom, we ought not to be subject to any man, that desires to overthrow the same in us, which God hath vouchsafed to give us to eternal life. Therefore if any man think, because he is a Christian, that he ought not to pay custom or tribute, or that he need not to yield honour due to those powers, who have the charge of these things, he is in a great error. Again, if any man think that he is to be subject so far, as that he supposeth, that he who excels in authority for temporal Government, hath power over his Faith, he falls into a greater error. But a mean must be observed, which the Lord himself prescribeth, that we give to Caesar, those things that are Caesar's, and to God, which are Gods.  
Here Austin comprehends many things in few words which support divers of our assertions, which are here and there set down in this Book. For both first he teacheth, that which we have said, that the profession of Christian Religion exempteth none from the subjection of Temporal power: whereof two things necessarily follow; whereof the one is, that the Apostles and all other Christians were subject to the authority of Heathen Princes and Magistrates, and therefore that neither S. Peter, nor any other Apostle, was endued with any Temporal power over Christians, for that it was wholly in the hands of the Heathen, as we have showed 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 over themselves, although they had strength to effect it, (as Bellarmine untruly thinketh) 
q Ilb 5. de Rom. Pont. C. 7.  because they were not delivered from the yoke of Temporal power, to which they were subject, before they received the Faith of Christ, which we will declare hereafter Chap. 21. in a large discourse. Thirdly, seeing he speaketh generally of that subjection, and useth such a speech, wherein he includeth himself, and excepts none, he doth plainly enough declare, that Clergymen as well as Lay-men are in this life subject to Temporal power: Lastly, he delivereth us a notable doctrine, of a twofold duty of Subjects, both toward God and toward the King, or the Temporal power, in what manner both of them ought to serve, and yield that which is right and due, which learning we have followed in this Book, and in the Books De Regno. Therefore let us lay this down as a main ground, that the place of S. Paul, which we spoke of before, is meant by him only of the Temporal jurisdiction. And yet we confess, that that opinion of performing obedience may very truly be applied to Spiritual jurisdiction also, by reason of the general similitude, and as they say, of the identity of reason, which holds so justly between them 
g L. illud D. ad leg. Aquil. .  
If then the Apostles in those times had no Temporal jurisdiction over private men, that were regenerate and made the children of the Church, how can it be, that the successors of the Apostles should obtain that jurisdiction over Princes, who come to the Church? Seeing it is repugnant of the Successors part, that they should have more interest over their spiritual Children, by virtue of the power Ecclesiastical, than the Apostles had, whom they succeed. But on the Prince's part, what can be spoken with more indignity and injustice, then that they professing the faith of Christ, should be pressed with a harder yoke, than any private man among the Multitude. But private men when they entered into the spiritual power of the Church; lost no inheritance nor any temporal interest, excepting those things, which they offered of their own accord, and conferred to the common use, as appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles, 
h Act. 5.  where Ananias his lie cost him his life, being taxed by S. Peter, in these words, whilst it remained, did it not appertain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Likewise therefore the Princes also after they gave their name to Christ, retained entirely and untouched all their temporal interest, I mean their Civil government and authority. Neither doth it a whit help the adversaries cause, to say that the Apostles therefore had no Temporal power over the Princes of their age, because they were not as yet made Christians, according to that 
* 1. Cor. 5.  for what have I to do, to judge those, which are without? But that the Pope now hath that power, because they are made Christians and sons 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 Son should be subject to the Father, not the Father to the Son. This reason is so trifling and merely nothing, that it is a wonder, that any place hath been given to it by learned men, for that spiritual subjection, whereby Princes are made sons of the Pope, is wholly distinguished and separated from Temporal subjection so as one followeth not the other, But as a Precedent or Consul in the time while he is in office, may give himself in adoption to another, and so pass into the family of an adoptive father, and into a fatherly power: whereas notwithstanding by that lawful act, he transferreth not upon the Adopter, either his Consular authority, 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 bosom of the Church, and yield themselves to be adopted by the chief Bishop, as their Father, do still reserve to themselves whatsoever temporal jurisdiction or Patrimony they have any where, free, entire and untouched by the same right, which they had before, and so the Pope acquires no more temporal power by that spiritual Adoption, than he had before, which shall be proved at large hereafter. 
* Cap 14.   
To this I may add, that when the Christian Commonweal did exceedingly flourish, both with multitude of Believers, and sanctimony of Bishops, and with learning and examples of great Clerks, and in the mean time was vexed and tossed by evil Princes, even such as by Baptism were made sons of the Church, there was not any I will not say express and manifest declaration, but not so much as any light mention made amongst the Clergy of this Principality, and temporal jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Princes, which notwithstanding if it had been bestowed by the Lord upon Peter's person, or in any sort had belonged to his successors, although in truth or in deed as they speak, they had not exercised it, it had never been passed over in so deep silence and so long, of so many and so worthy men for holiness and wisdom, and such as for the cause of God and the Church feared nothing in this world. Who will believe that all the Bishops of those times, burning with zeal and affection to govern the Church, would so neglect this part of this Pastoral duty, if so be they had thought it to be a part, (wherein certain of their successors have placed the greatest defence and protection of the Faith) that upon so many and so great occasions they would never use it against heretical Emperors? And yet there was never any amongst them, who ever so much as signified by writing or by word, that by the law of God he was superior to the Emperor in temporal matters. Nay rather every one of them as he excelled most in learning and holiness, so he with much submission observed the Emperor, and sticked not to profess himself to be his vassal and servant. S. Gregory the Great, may stand for many instances, who in a certain Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor. 
* Lib. 2. Epist. 61. indict. 11.  And I the unworthy servant of your Piety, saith he, and a little after, For therefore, is power given from heaven to the Piety of my Lords, over all men, (he said Lords, that he might comprehend both the Emperor and Augusta, by whom Mauricius had the Empire in dowry.) Mark how this holy Bishop, witnesseth that power is given from heaven to the Emperor over the Pope; above all men, saith he, therefore above the Pope, if the Pope be a man. Now it matters not much for the mind and sense of the Author whether he writ this as a Bishop and a Pope, or as a private person, seeing it is to be believed, that in both cases he both thought and writ it, for our purpose it is enough to know how the Bishops of that age did carry themselves toward the Emperor, for I fear not, lest any learned man allege, that Gregory in that Epistle did so in his humility exalt the Emperor, and submit himself to him, by a subjection, which was not due to him. Because if any silly fellow do thus object, I will give him this answer only, that he offers so holy a Bishop great injury, to say that for humility sake the lieth, and that he lieth to the great prejudice of the Church and dignity of the Pope, so as now it is no officious, but a very pernicious lie. Let him hear S. Austin. 
2 Serm 29 le 〈…〉. tom. 10.  When thou liest for humilities sake, if thou didst not sin before thou didst lie, by lying thou hast committed that, which thou didst shun. Now that Gregory spoke not feignedly, and Courtlike, but from his heart, those words do testify, which he writeth more expressly about the end of that Epistle of his necessary subjection and obedience toward the Emperor. Mauricius had made a law, which, though it were unjust and prejudicial to the liberty of the Church, yet Gregory, receiving a Commandment from the Emperor to publish it, did send it accordingly into divers countries to be proclaimed. Therefore thus he concludes that Epistle: I being subject to the Commandment, have caused the same law to be sent abroad into divers parts of the world: and because the same law is no whit pleasing to Almighty God, behold I have signified so much to my honourable Lords by this letter of my suggestion. Therefore in both respects I have discharged my duty, in that I have both performed my Obedience to the Emperor; and have not concealed that which I thought on God's behalf.  
O divine Prelate, and speech, to be continually remembered to all succeeding Bishops of all ages. But o God whether is that gentle and humble confession banished out of our world? to which this threatening and insolent speech against Kings and Emperors hath by little and little succeeded: We being placed in the supreme throne of justice, possessing the supreme power over all Kings, and Princes of the universal earth, over all People's, Countries, Nations, which is committed to us not by human but by divine ordinance, do declare, will, command 
Ex. 〈…〉. 5. 〈◊〉 Regin. Aug. & 〈◊〉 5. contra Reg. Franc. : etc. which word it is plain even by this, that they are false and vain, because the Pope hath neither spiritual nor temporal power over unbelieving Princes and People, as Bellarmine with very good reason showeth in his books of the Bishop of Rome 
b Lib. 5. cap 2. :  
These, and such like fashions as these, who will they not drive into amazement and wonder at so great a change of the Pope's state and government? or do they not give to all men just cause to inquire, wherefore the former Popes in the most flourishing age of the Church, acknowledged themselves to be the servants, subjects, and vassals of Princes, and obeyed their authority in temporal matters, when as they notwithstanding were over them in spiritual: and our later Popes profess themselves to be Lords of all Kings, Princes, Countries, and Nations? In very truth, this matter doth give no small occasion to many learned men and good Catholics, to doubt of the justness of this change: yea indeed to believe that a temporal government so great and so absolute had his beginning in the persons of Popes, not from God omnipotent, but from the impotent ambition of certain men: and that it was not in the beginning conferred from heaven upon Peter, by the Lord Christ, but was usurped by certain successors of Peter, many ages after, according to the fashion of the world: that is, certain Popes, having a massed huge store of wealth and riches, and fostering their blind ambition and fury, by little and little challenged that greatness to themselves, whereby they laboured and strove, that it might be lawful for them to take away and bestow, what soever Kingdoms 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 bore against Philip the Fair, King of France, set forth a decretal constitution 
c Cap. ●ler de immunit. ec. l. in 6.  which brought forth so many scandals, so many dangers, that it deserved forthwith to be abrogated by Boniface his successor 
d Clem. de imunit. eccls ubi glos. ●d nota●.  Now the admirable and miserable assentation of certain flatterers, gave increase and nourishment to that vice in them, who by their fond and foolish assertions, such as now these Bozian fancies are, affirmed that all things were lawful for the Pope, and that by God's law all things were subject to him. Whereby we may marvel the less, if many of them did so far forget their Bishoplike and Apostolic modesty, that through a desire to enlarge their power, they encroached upon other men's borders. Of whom Gaguinus a learned man and religious taxing by the way, an authority so far spread, and usurped, as he calls it. 
e Lib 1 hist 〈…〉.  Therefore so great saith he, is their height and state, that making small reckoning of Kings, they glory that they may do all things. Neither hath any in my time come to the Popedom, who, having once got the place, hath not forthwith advanced his nephews to great wealth and honour. And long before Gaguinus S. Bernard: 
f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium.  Doth not in these dates ambition, more than devotion wear the thresholds of the Apostles? 
f Lib 3. de cons. ad eugenium.  upon this occasion Platina. 
g In vita Bonif. 〈◊〉.  In this manner dieth that Boniface, who endeavoured to strike terror rather than religion into Emperors, Kings, Princes, Nations Peoples: who also laboured to give Kingdoms and to take them away, to famish men and to reduce them at his own pleasure. And the same Gaguinus in another place: 
h Lib ● hist. in vita Philip. Pul.  Such an end of his life had Boniface the disdainer of all men, who little remembering the precepts of Christ, endeavoured to take away, and to bestow Kingdoms at his pleasure: when as he knew well enough, that he stood in his place here in earth, whose kingdom was not of this world, nor of earthly matters, but of heavenly, who also had procured the Popedom, by subtlety and wicked practice, and kept Caelestinus in prison, while he lived, (a most holy man) of whom he received honour.   

CHAP. IU.  
NOw I do chiefly find two things, which seem to have given unto the Pope's the opportunity to arrogate so great power to themselves. The one is, the very great honour, which (as indeed there was reason,) was given to the chief Pastor of souls, by Princes and christian people, and yet aught to be given to him: and the forestalled and settled opinion of the sanctity of that sea of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, which is conspicuous and excelleth amongst all men in all spiritual honour and authority: and in that respect hath been beyond all other most increased and honoured with wealth and riches. By these means all men, were very easily persuaded to believe, that neither the Pope in regard of his holiness would challenge to himself any authority, which did not appertain unto him: and also, that it was not lawful for a christian man in any manner to disobey the Pope's commandments. Whereby it came to pass, that sundry Popes, whose minds were too much addicted to ambition and vain glory, embouldned and heartened through the confidence of this so great reverence and affection of men towards them, drew to themselves this power over Kings, which was utterly unknown to the first successors of Peter. The which also passed the more currant by reason of the preoccupate and now engrafted conceit of the people and ignorant folk, who being possessed of this opinion of holiness, did verily believe that the Pope could not err, either in word or deed: and also, by the writings of certain clergy men catholics, and Canonists, who either erring through ignorance of the truth, or wholly resolved into flattery of their Prince the Pope, of whom they did depend, did heap and lay upon his only person, all the power, which is in the universal world, with these allurements and invitations the Popes, who of their own accord ran with speed enough toward honour and greatness, were now much more inflamed as it were with certain new firebrands of ambition and aspiring thoughts. For all, how many soever held that sea lawfully, governed the Church with an authority 
* See the admonition to the reader.  equal to Peter: but not all of them burning with the zeal of Peter, governed it with equal disposition to him. Nay I can not write it without grief of heart it is certain, that many crept into that place by violence and villainy, others did break into it, and defiled the most holy Chair with the filthiness of their lives and behaviour: others also; who were advanced to the height of that dignity, burned with an ambitious desire of ruling, and out of their emulation and envy against secular Kings and Princes, endeavoured by all devise and cunning to enlarge the bounds of their government, which in the beginning was merely spiritual, with the increase of temporal jurisdiction and authority. Which affectation, although at the first divers supposed to be a grace and ornament to that great dignity, which the Vicar of Christ in earth, and the successor of blessed Peter doth hold, yet when some of them grew to that insolency, that they supposed it lawful for them not only to throw down Kings from their Thrones, but also to give away great and goodly kingdoms, for reward, nay for a pray, and to grant them to any that would seize upon them, then surely there was no reasonable man, but he greatly misliked that unreasonable pride of mind, and either shed tears, or conceived great anger at the same. Who was there at that time that did not either mourn inwardly, or gnash his teeth in his head, when that most proud Pope whom we mentioned before, presumed so arrogantly to deprive that most mighty Monarch Philip the Fair of his kingdom, and to bestow it together with the Empire upon Albert Duke of Austria? And that for no other reason in the world, but because the King had laid his Legate by the heels, for threatening him in so saucy 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 fill. sunt legit.  that he had no superior in temporal matters) he had resigned his kingdom to the Pope as Client and Feudaire to him, for so he denounceth to the King by the Archdeacon of Narbona, that the kingdom of Fraence, was escheated to the Church of Rome for his Contumacy, and violating of the law of Nations, which speech of his, what doth it else imply, but that this kingdom, in all men's judgement the most free and flourishing kingdom of the world, and by example and precedent thereof, all other Christian kingdoms, are as Benefices and Feudes of the Church of Rome, and even of the Pope himself? seeing they could not otherwise escheat to that Church for Contumacy & felony, (as they term it,) unless the direct temporal Dominion and fee of those kingdoms were in the same Church.  
The other occasion of affecting so great a temporal jurisdiction was presented by the sword of Excommunication, the principal bulwark of the spiritual government; which was so great terror to the world, that the people, durst neither neglect nor contemn the Pope's curses; being armed & fortified howsoever by right or by wrong, with the thunderbolt of Excommunication: and this voice did usually sound out of Pulpits, That every Excommunication, although it were unjust was to be feared, and that it belonged only to the Pope to judge whether it were just or unjust. Besides that also, that a man ought neither to eat, nor to have any Commerce with Excommunicate persons 
k Can. sicut Can. excommunicatos. xi. q. 3. . With which warnings and threatenings the Subjects of Princes excommunicate being for the most part terrified, did fall from their Obedience: and that which in Evils of this Nature was the worst of all, the Pope partly by threatening of the like Curses partly by persuasions and gifts, raised other Princes against a Prince that had been excommunicate by him. For this cause those Princes upon whom this malice of the Popes did sit so hard, being wrapped in so many dangers on every side, and exposed to such a hazard of their estate, made choice rather to pacific an angry Pope with the submission of their Crown and Sceptre, (and to redeem their vexations) then for their own particular to embroil all the world, and to set all a fire with sedition and arms. This short and compendious way had Popes, to exanimate and daunt Kings and Princes with fear, and almost to obtain a victory without striking stroke. Notwithstanding many Princes of good resolution withstood such attempts and proffers of Popes, and that so stiffly, that the mischief which followed thereon turned rather to the Pope's hindrance then the Prince. But in this place the Reader may please to be advertised, that this Opinion which was so rife in every man's mouth, That every Excommunication is to be feared, aught to be understood with this exception, without that it manifestly appear, that it is unjust, for than it is neither to be regarded, nor feared, so as the party excommunicate be free from contempt and presumption, for than it works 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 upon Subjects because they obey their King or Prince being excommunicate in those things which belong to temporal jurisdiction, and do not repugn the Commandments of God, as shall hereafter be declared in a more convenient place. 
l Cap. 21.  Besides neither is that always true, That we ought not to have commerce or eat meat with Excommunicate persons, for in this case it is not true, where the danger is apparent, least by such a separation some great mischief arise in the Church as usually it doth, when a Prince is excommunicate, if his Subjects forbear to communicate with him, for there is never any Prince so much forlorn, who cannot find friends and clients, by whose aid and arms he may maintain his cause, although it be never so unjust, with great hurt both to Church and commonweal, whereof both in the memory of our Forefathers and in our own age, there have been lamentable examples in Christian countries: where I say any such thing is feared, a separation of bodies is not necessary, But it is enough to be severed from such in heart, to be distinguished by life and manners, for the preservation of Peace and Unity, which is to be preserved for the health of those, which are weak: as S. Austin excellently teacheth, 
m Lib. 3 contra Epist. Parm. c. 2.  whereby it seemeth to follow, that the Pope doth very unadvisedly, who forbids the subjects communion and society with their Prince so oft as no small both division and confusion hangeth over Church and Commonwealth, yea that in such a Case the Subjects 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 usurped to themselves this temporal power over Princes which none of all their Ancestors did ever acknowledge neither in the first nor in the middle times. And indeed Gregory the 7. being exasperated partly with the public offence of Henry the 4. the Emperor, and partly with a private injury, did first of all challenge to himself, that right and power to give and take away kingdoms, affirming that Christ did give to Peter and his successors, all the kingdoms of the world: in this verse, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho.  
But Gregory raised nothing of that action but bloody and raging Tragedies: and was hindered by force and arms that he could not effect his unhappy designs. 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 clearly proved out of that Epistle of Hosius, which we alleged to Constantius infected with the Arrian heresy: and also vexing Liberius Bishop of Rome and other Orthodoxal Bishops with banishments and sundry other miseries, for in that place, that worthy man speaks, not in the person of a Christian man, nor of a simple Bishop, but in the name of the whole Ecclesiastic order, and even of the Pope himself: and he saith either true or false: If true, it is evident, that the Church at that time conceived, that they had no temporal jurisdiction over Kings and Christian Princes, no not for heresy, which is the most grievous and pestilent crime that is. If false, wherefore? that he might flatter the Emperor? very like: how then could he thus say, Loquebar de testimonijs tuis in conspectu Regum & non confundebar 
n Psal. 118. . Or because he knew not the truth of the matter, and the doctrine of the Church? Surely I think no man will ascribe that to such a man, who did not only match the most of his age in learning and eloquence, but also by reason of his years exceeded them all in experience, who having often been present at Counsels and Assemblies of the holy Fathers, and heard their judgement: of the power and authority of the Church; could not be ignorant what was there determined touching 〈◊〉 Princes, and the power of the Church over them. I add also that, which passeth all the rest that this judgement of this most noble Confessort to Constantius is commended by S. Athanasius, but never misliked by any of the holy Fathers either of that time, or of the ages following, that we should justly conceive any prejudicate opinion of this judgement.   

CHAP. V.  
I Have already sufficiently discoursed of the folly of Bozius. and the Canonists who affirm that the dominion and Empire of the whole world is given to the Pope by the law of God. For I need not spend much pains in refuting the same, since it is long ago hissed out by the common consent of the Divines. Now let us pass over to the other opinion, which the Divines, misliking that of the Canonists have substituted in the place of this rejected fancy, and let us see whether it agree with the truth. Now he hath propounded it thus in the first Chap. That the Pope hath temporal power indirectly, and after a certain manner, that is, in respect of his spiritual monarchy: hath I say, the chief power even temporal, to dispose of the temporal estates of all Christians. Which opinion if it be true, whatsoever is drawn 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 Divines, and above the rest Bellarmine learnedly doth for this reason reprove the Canonists opinion, which gives to the pope the dominion of the whole world, and to Kings and secular Princes the execution only, and that committed to them by the Pope, because the Popes themselves do freely confess (as is expressed in divers of their letters) that temporal Empires and Kingdoms are given to princes of God: and whatsoever either power or execution Kings and Emperors have, that they have it of Christ. From whence the same Bellarmine concludes that argument very finely against the Canonists in a dilemma, or perplexed manner of reasoning. 
a Lib 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3.  Therefore I ask (quoth he,) either the Pope can take from Kings and Emperors this execution, as being himself the supreme King and Emperor, or he cannot: if he can, therefore he is greater than Christ, if he can not, therefore he hath not truly this Kingly power.  
And why may not we aswell use an argument of the same kind against this other opinion of the Divines? Kingdoms and Empires are given by God, as many holy Popes do witness: for which cause S. Gregory in a certain Epistle to Mauricius the Emperor 
b 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 Sovereign Lord, Almighty God hath ordained to govern the world, let her by favouring of justice return her service to him, of whom she received the right of so great authority. What should I use many words? The Scripture itself witnesseth, that Kings and Emperors receive power from God, whose vicegerents they are therein, as saith Lyranus upon that of Wisdom, 6. Power is given to you from the Lord, and virtue from the Highest, who will inquire into your works. Why then should not a man use a dilemma out of Bellarmine against Bellarmine. The Pope can one way or other, that is, directly, or indirectly, take away kingdoms and empires, from Kings and Emperors, and give 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 given: For one that is less or equal, cannot take away that, which is granted by his greater or his equal: Nay nor the Deputy or Vicar of him who granted, without the express commandment of the Lord: lest any man should lay in our way, that the Pope as Christ's Vicar doth it. Whereas it can be no where found, that he hath received any warrant touching that matter, either expressly, or by implication, as by those things which follow will easily appear. If he can not, than it is false which they say, that he hath supreme power indirectly, to dispose of all the Temporalties of Christians, and to depose Kings and Emperors from their thrones, and to suffect others in their places. I would they would consider how their own argument doth wring them, and not this only, but also another of greater force, which we reported above out of the same book and Chapter of Bellarmine; the which also in this place we will and that by good right fit to our purpose in this manner.  
If it be true that the Pope hath temporal 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 appear by the Scriptures, or surely by the tradition of the Apostles. Out of the Scriptures we have nothing but that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Pope, of the keys of the kingdom of earth there is no mention: as for tradition of Apostles, the adversaries produce none, neither Canonists nor Divines. If by man's law, let them bring forth their law, that we may be all of the same opinion with them. But if they shall say, that they need neither express word of God, nor tradition of Apostles for the confirmation of this power, since it appertameth to the Pope only indirectly and by a kind of consequence, as a certain and inseparable accession, and appurtenance of that Spiritual power, wherewith the supreme Pastor of souls is endued over all the sheep of the Christian flock: We also will require of them some testimony of this accession and conjunction, either out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles: We do require I say, that they teach us either out of Scriptures or tradition of Apostles, that this is an accession and consequence necessary and inseparable to that Spiritual power which the Pope hath, and that it belongeth to the Pope's office in some manner: that is indirectly, as they speak, to dispose of all temporal matters of Christians: seeing it is very unlikely, if that belongs to his office, that so great an extent of power, and which there is nothing higher amongst men hath been omitted in so deep silence in the Church so many ages, both by Christ our Saviour, and also by the Apostles, and their successors: for if each power may be severed from other, the Spiritual from the Temporal, 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 have wise men defined, as oft as any thing is forbidden to be done directly, that the same can neither be done indirectly or by consequence: unless that which is forbidden do follow necessarily to another thing lawfully permitted, so as the thing permitted cannot proceed without the thing prohibited, and unless (as I may speak with the Civilians) The cause of both be so commixed, that it cannot be severed 
e I. 5 § generaliter. D. de don. inter vir. & uxor. . Whereby it is concluded that he who is alone cannot alien any thing, cannot yield to a suit moved upon the same thing 
f Panor. in cap. ludum 54. the elect. & cap. 〈◊〉 pridem. 〈◊〉 pact. , for that by this mean he should obliquely & indirectly alien. Therefore if the Pope as he is Pope hath no temporal power directly over Christians which they do grant, it seemeth to be proved by the former sentence of the law, that he can have none not so much as indirectly. Therefore that they may persuade men to their opinion, they ought to bring testimony out of Scriptures or traditions of Apostles, or at least make plain that this temporal power whereof they speak, is so joined with the Spiritual, that by no means it can be pulled and divided from it, I mean that the Spiritual cannot consist without it. Which because they could not perform, they have followed nothing but uncertain opinions, and such reasons as seem not sufficiently to conclude, that which they assume, which we will examine in their order and place.   

CHAP. VI  
THe former opinion of the temporal power, which they say the Pope hath indirectly, is vehemently shaken even by this that neither practice nor example, nor any mention of such a papal power hath been heard of the space of a thousand years in the Church, when as in those times many christian Princes did abuse their Kingdoms and Governments impiously, cruelly, perversely, and to the great prejudice and mischief 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 do govern the Church with greater power and command, because these later have openly challenged to themselves this temporal power, and have endeavoured to pull the same in and at their pleasure over Kings and Princes: but the former have not at any time acknowledged that any such right belongeth to them: I am not ignorant, what answers have been made by divers 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 judge.  
There came forth a book printed at Rome the year of our Lord 1588. published under a feigned name of Franciscus Romulus, with this title: An answer to certain heads of an Apology which is falsely entitled Catholic, for the succession of Henry of Navarre into the Kingdom of France. The author of which book, whom Bellarmine knows and loves very well, labours to take away this most important objection, by the change of the state of the Church, and by the diverse reason and condition of times and persons which oftentime brings in diversity of law 
a cap. 18. . For thus he saith. And now where as the adversary objecteth in the fourth place, touching the custom of our ancestors, who endured many heretical 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 inconsiderately to abuse her power. Moreover it falleth out not very seldom, that the power of certain Kings is so great, being also joined with wickedness and cruelty, that the Ecclesiastical censure neither profiteth any thing to restrain them, and doth very much hurt to Catholic people, upon whom these Princes provoked do rage the more. For I pray you, what had it availed the Church in times past if she had assayed to excommunicate & to depose either the Ostrogoth Kings in Italy, or the Visegothes in Spain, or the Vandals in Africa, although she might have done it very justly? and the very same aught to be understood of Constantius and Valens, and others above named, and indeed then the times were such, as that the Bishops ought rather to have been ready to suffer Martyrdom, then to punish Princes. But when the Church perceived, that now some place was opened to her power, either with the spiritual profit of the Princes themselves, or at least without the mischief and hurt of the people, she was not wanting to herself, as the examples alleged before do prove. For thus the Church judged that Leo Isaurus was to be deprived of half his Empire, and Henry the fourth of the whole, and Childerike of the Kingdom of France, and indeed afterward both Leo wanted part of his Empire, and Henry the whole, and Childerike his kingdom of France. Therefore the Church did not therefore tolerate those ancient Emperors Constantius and Valens and the rest, (as the adversary dreameth,) because they succeeded lawfully into the Empire, for otherwise she had also borne with Leo also and Henry, and Childerike, who succeeded no less lawfully, but because she could not punish them without the hurt of the people, these she might. Thus he, in which words he yieldeth a double reason of the diversity, wherefore the Church endured Constantius, julianus; Valens, Valentinianus the younger, Anastasius Heraclius, and other heretical Princes, but did not forbear Leo Isaurus, Henry IU. Childerike, and the dangerous Princes of the ages ensuing: One forsooth, because then the times were such as the Bishops ought to have been ready rather to suffer Martyrdom, then to punish Princes. The other because the Church or the Pope, could not without the hurt of the people punish Constantius. julianus, Valens, and the rest of that sort above mentioned, but as for Leo, Henry, Childerike and the others she could; therefore them she endured, these she endured not. But let us see if both the reasons of this diversity be not false, and grounded upon mere and strange falsehoods, and yet none hath assigned any better, nor as I think can assign any, save only that, which doth utterly overthrow the cause of the adversaries, 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 carried away with greediness of glory, usurped that temporal jurisdiction whereof we speak. Therefore that the Bishops of that time being contented with their spiritual jurisdiction, which they exercised with indifferency upon all persons, did wholly forbear the temporal power, which they did know that it belonged not unto them: so recommending the cause of the Church to the judgement of God, did with humility and patience expect the conversion or confusion of wicked Princes. But I return to the reasons given by this Author, that we may see, how faulty they are.  
And indeed to deal plainly, his former reason or cause of diversity seemeth to me very unworthy and unfit to be alleged by any Catholic, much less by a Divine, which I even for this cause have much a do to read without tears. For what? are we fallen into those times where in Bishops ought rather to be soldiers, than 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 coercion of Princes, consisteth in this, that then the Bishops ought rather to have been fit to undergo Martyrdom, then to reduce Princes into order. Which being so, who can not easily perceive by his proper judgement, and natural logic that either this reason stands not upon dissimilia, that is terms of unlikeness, or that is to be placed in the other part, which we have set down. And yet, I dare boldly affirm, that there never time fell out since Constantine the great more opportune and more necessary for Bishops to offer themselves to Martyrdom. The lion every where gapeth for his prey, the wolf stands watching at the sheepfolds; most mighty Kings and Princes, many Nations and people, buckle themselves and arm against the flock of Christ, and doth this man think, that the time doth not require, that the Bishops should not expose themselves to Martyrdom, and lay down their lives for the sheep? what when the Church flourished, and was spread, through the whole world, the Bishops ought to hope and look for nothing but Martyrdom: and now, when matters are come to this pass, that the Church is grievously tossed and tumbled, and as it were crowded into a corner of Europe, may the Bishops bend their minds without all fear of danger to punish Princes and not rather to suffer Martyrdom? what, because in these days, they maintain great trains and retinues, and troops of horse and foot, to defend themselves, their lives, and Persons, and by force and arms to deliver the Church from the injury of so many Princes and people that spoil her? Or rather because now adays, very few undertake the bishoprics with that mind and condition that they should be encumbered and vexed with those troubles either of mind or body, which good Pastors ought to suffer * in Persecutions and Confession of the Faith: but that they may pass their life with case and pleasure: and that they may advance and magnify their own house and blood by the goods of the poor and Patrimony of Christ? Or lastly, because that being hirelings and mercenary Pastors, they do believe that it is very lawful for them, when the Wolf comes and tears the Flock, to take their heels, and to avoid Martyrdom? I do not bring forth these things to cast injury or envy upon the Ecclesiastical order, which I ever reverenced and honoured from a child. Neither do I doubt but there are many who do keep most carefully and watchfully the flock committed to them, being ready upon all occasions even with their bodies to defend the sheep committed to their keeping, and with their blood to seal the confession of Christ. But I speak all this in reproof of the former answer, and with all to their shame, who now in every place affect the dignities of the Church, without any purpose of life fit for the Church, but that they themselves may live bravely and gallantly, and that they may consume that wealth, which the purity of an Ecclesiastical life doth well deserve, upon uses either unlawful, or surely not necessary, very dishonestly and to the great scandal of the Church. O the times! O the manners of men! The greatest part of the Christian common weal, within these hundred years, or there about, is utterly perished. Even by this very mean that many Bishops and Priests, being more forward to arms then to Martyrdom, have unadvisedly followed the meaning of the former answer: supposing forsooth that which was not so, that Heresy might easily be oppressed by arms, while themselves in the mean time held their own course of life, that is, cherished their own former pleasure and slothfulness. Therefore they saw the Wolf coming and fled away and many of them fled to the Wolves themselves. I speak no secrets now, Scotland and England are my witnesses, and other Countries which are slipped into* heresy, wherein although many resisted manfully, yet the 
See the admonition to the Reader.  greatest part of the Churchmen did not endure so much as the first assault, but presently in shameful manner put in practise their treason and defection, partly that they might enjoy the favour to live freely which was both promised and permitted unto them by the Novators, partly, lest that, they being deprived of all their present means, should fall to beggary: whereas, if like those first Fathers in times past, they had bend themselves to Martyrdom, they had in the very infancy destroyed that most horrible Monster. It may be, that the Author of that book, wrote such things of a good mind, and without any fraud: but surely it cannot be, that as the state of the Church affairs 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 catholic Church, velut nexu Man●ipioque as the Civilians say, that is, by the straightest bands of service and duty, even than saith he were those times such, as wherein the Bishops ought to have been more ready to have suffered Martyrdom, then to have enforced Princes to order: and now, when partly Infidels, partly Heretics have spread over all Asia, Africa, Europe, one or two kingdoms only excepted, and that the Church is reduced almost to so great straits as ever it was, he is not of the mind that the Bishops are required by the same necessity to perform this duty. But surely this is too much either negligence in searching, or indulgence in judging and advising; neither aught a learned man and a Divine as the Author seemeth to be, to open to the Prelates of the Church, who are as it were by a certain storm carried into the same licence of living, I say to open them so easy a way to forsake their duty, that they may suppose, that they ought not to be so ready in these days to Martyrdom, as to raise war against evil Princes, who it is certain that without wars, they can never be reduced into order, and deprived of their kingdoms. How much righter were they (who whether they were the first of the Jesuits, or of some other Order, for I have it only by report) presented themselves to the Cardinals at Rome, and even as they passed in state according to the manner, did very sharply reprove their effeminateness, their riot, & their carelessness, because that the most turbulent tempest of the Lutheran heresy 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 plain, that the Author of the answer is much deceived, in laying the reason of the difference in the dissimilitude of those ancient and these times, as far as concerns the duty, 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 bear with Constantius Valens and others, for that they lawfully succeeded in the Empire, no more than they did with Leo, Henry, and Childerike, which no less lawfully succeed, but because she could not without hurt of the people correct them, these she could. For this is most false, and I wonder that Bellarmine followed this reason elsewhere 
a 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 have attempted the matter by arms, or use some policy, and the mean of some devout person, for at this time the whole world was Christian, under Constantius, (as is evident by a letter of Constantine the Great, to the Church recorded by Eusebius and Nicephorus,) and the greatest part of it orthodox: so as they wanted not strength to oppress the Emperor, if they had held it lawful or godly to take up arms and contend against a lawful Prince. And truly it is credible that God would honour with a victory both easily and not very costly for blood, his own soldiers who should undertake such a war, not of hatred or ambition, but of a mere zeal to preserve the Church from ruin. Moreover there was a great multitude of monks in Egypt and Lybia, and an innumerable company of other godly men of all sorts swarmed all over Asia and Europe: amongst whom no doubt there were many of no less zeal, than that wretch who murdered Henry the 3 king of France, but furnished with more knowledge and grace, whereby they prescribed a mean to inconsiderate, headlong and rash zeal. These men if it had been lawful, might easily have dispatched the Emperor, without tumult of war, and noise of arms, and if so be the Church had had any power over him, they might have put the same in execution, without any harm to the people.  
What should I speak of julianus the successor of Constantius? Could not the Church think you chasten him without any harm at all to the people? when as being a shameful Apostate, and such a one as never was found amongst Christians, he had his whole army which he commanded consisting of Christians, for even after his death, when iovinianus being by general consent chosen Emperor, had proclaimed that himself was a Christian, & therefore that he would not command an army of Infidels 
d Ruffin. lib. 2. hist eccles. ca 1. Socra. Scholar lib. 3. cap. 22. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 1. , the soldiers answered, and generally cried out, Never fear noble Emperor, neither do you refuse our government, as unworthy: for you are like to be a Commander of Christians, who are brought up in the discipline of piety, 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 serve the turn to settle the poison in those few that had been circumvented & abused by him. I could wish that both the author of that book, & the Reader of this, would consider diligently. Whether the Church seconded with so great power, had not been able with ease to take that Emperor away, without any harm of the people: especially seeing the Emperors were at that time created by the soldiers alone, who amongst those first times of Religion, and hope of Martyrdom, esteemed nothing more honourable, then to believe and obey their Prelates: delivering to them the law and will of God. Now if they had learned in those Schools of the most holy Fathers, that it was lawful for the Church to deprive a wicked Prince of his government, and that it is lawful for such subjects to take away and murder such a Ruler, either by open force, or secret practice, there was nothing more easy for them then to deprive julian of his empire, or take away his life, and without any tumult, or danger, or public loss to suffect an other at their pleasure in his place. For now the right of nominating the Emperor, was by long custom supposed to belong to the army, as also in very deed, iovinianus first, and after Valentinianus, both confessors of Christ, after the death of of julianus, were both advanced to the Empire by the same army. Nay what will you say, that although the whole army would not have conspired against the enemy of Christ: yet those soldiers alone whom we mentioned out of Nazianzen in our books De Regno 
* 〈…〉. 5. , together with iovinianus the Confessor, would with little a do have destroyed julianus. Whom if you consider their valour and resolution, the use and experience of arms: if opportunity, the easy access of soldiers to their Commanders in those times, if disposition, the fervent heat of their minds burning with desire of Martyrdom, and undertaking any thing for the defence of the faith, would have made them much more ready and eager to deliver the Church by some notorious action, from the treachery and tyranny of such a villainous person, much more I say, than any precipitate rashness could set on a brainsick and furious monk. What may we think? that the Christians of that time did hear the famous trumpets of the Gospel, Athanasius, Basilius, both the Gregory's, Cyrillus, Epihanius, Hilarius, Hosius, and many other Bishops excelling in virtue and learning, who by reason of their learning could not be ignorant what interest the Church had over Princes, and if they had known and understood the same, by reason of their great sanctity of life, and constancy in adversity, would not have held their peace, and dissembled the same, in so importunate a business to the Christian commonweal. What may we think that those divine Prelates taught the people, that there was no remedy against that Apostata, but in patience and tears? for so saith Nazianzenus. 
f Orat. 1. in julian.  These things (saith he) did julianus 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 tears of the Christians, who were in great abundance, and by many powered out, when as they had this only remedy against the Persecutors. I beseech you Reader, that you would observe & consider Nazianzenus well in this place. He affirmeth that the Christians, that is, the Church had no remedy besides tears, against the persecution of julianus, when as notwithstanding it is certain, that they had at their service the whole army of julianus. Therefore surely this Pope, who for his singular excellency, was called the Divine, did not think that the Church hath any power over a most ungodly Emperor; to raise the Christian army against him: otherwise it were false, that Christians or the Church had no other remedy but tears against a persecutor: for they had an army, which being commanded by the Church, would easily for the cause of God have fallen away from julianus.  
Now that which we said of Constantius and julianus, that without great difficulty they might have been brought into order by the Church, and deprived of Sceptres and life, without any harm to the people: the same is much more apparent in Valens and Valentinianus the younger. For the chief Commanders and Captains of Valens his army were good Catholics, by whom he managed all his wars, being himself an idle and slothful Prince: and those were Terentius, Traianus, Arintheus, Victor and others, who constantly professed the Catholic faith, and boldly upbraided the Emperor to his face with his heresy, and impiety against God: but in so religious a liberty they held their hands, neither did their heat and anger proceed beyond the bounds of admonition: because they knew it was their duty only to tell the Prince his faults, but not to punish the same. Therefore in all matters which belonged to temporal government, they yielded obedience to this heretic, whom they might easily have removed, and to the great good of the afflicted Church, have reduced back again the whole Monarchy to Ualentinianus a Catholic Prince, from whom it came. Could not these Commanders of his forces conclude a league amongst themselves, against their Prince, being an heretic, if it had been lawful for them so to do? Was it not more profitable for the Church that an heretic Emperor should not govern Catholics? Or did the Church all that time want learned and watchful Pastors, and by that means either neglected or did not understand her temporal interest? for what, which only remains to be said, no age did ever bear Christians more obedience and dutiful to their Prelates, then that did: that if so be the Church had wanted not the power to sway Princes in temporal matters, but the execution only of that power, the people and army would not have been long before they had delivered her from the tyranny of Constatius, julianus, and Valens. To which, the worthy testimony of S. Augustine gives faith, registered among the Canons, 
h In Psal. 124.  julianus (saith he) was an Infidel Emperor: Was he not an Apostata, unjust, an Idolater, Christian soldiers seruedan Infidel Emperor: when they came to the cause of Christ, they acknowledged none but him that was in heaven: When he would have them to worship Idols, to sacrifice, they preferred God before him. But when he said, draw forth the Companies, get you against that country, presently they obeyed. For they distinguished their eternal from the temporal Lord: And yet for their eternal Lord his sake, they were subject even to a temporal Lord.  
Who doth not see in this place, that it was the easiest matter in the world for the Church every manner of way to chastise julianus, if the had had any temporal power over him? For then the cause of Christ had come in question, in which case the soldiers would prefer Christ before the Emperor, that is, the eternal Lord, before the temporal Lord, for the Church's cause is the cause of Christ. Therefore either the Bishops of Rome, or the Popes, and even the whole Church, did then believe for certain that they had no temporal jurisdiction in any sort over secular Princes, or surely they were wanting to their office, nor did they so carefully provide for the flock committed to their charge, as now after many ages our last Popes have done, who maintain very earnestly that it belongeth to a part of their Pastoral office, to chastise all Princes and monarchs, not only for heresy or schism, but also for other causes, and that with temporal punishment, and even to spoil them of their Empires and Kingdoms, if it shall please them. Whereas otherwise neither they are to be compared with those first Bishops for holiness 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 love the truth, we must confess, that no man can either accuse or excuse the Bishops of both times in this point, without prevarication or calumniation, the praise of each will turn to the dispraise of the other. But let us go forward.   

CHAP. VIII.  
VAlentinian the younger, of all who to this day governed not only an Empire, but Kingdom or any Principality might most easily have been coerced and bridled by the Church, for he might have been not only thrust out of his Empire at the commandment of the chief Bishop, that is, the Bishop of Rome, but even at the beck and pleasure of a poor Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, be forsaken of his own soldiers and guard, and be reduced to the state of a private man. Before day, saith Ambrose 
a Ad sororem suam Marcellinam. epist. 33. 11. 5. , as soon as I set my foot out of doors, the Palace was beset round about with soldiers: and it is reported that word was sent the Emperor by the soldiers, that if he would come forth he should have leave, but yet that they would be ready to attend him, if they saw that he did agree with the Catholics: otherwise that they would pass over to the company that Ambrose gathered. Not one of the Arrians durst come forth, because neither any of them were Citizens, a few of them of the Prince's house, and many of them Goths, who as before they had a Cart for their house, so now a Cart is their Church. And after in the same Epistle speaking of himself. I am called a Tyrant, quoth he, yea and more than a Tyrant, for when his friends entreated the Emperor, that he would come out to the Church, and told him withal, that they did it at the request of his soldiers, he answered: If Ambrose command you I will deliver myself to be bound. What say the Adversaries to this? is not this one place enough to stop all men's mouths? I omit that Maximus comes marching into Italy with a great army gathered out of the parts of Britain and France, to provide, as he pretended, that Catholic religion should receive no further harm: and that the Churches now corrupted by Ualentinianus might be restored to their former estate; the which also he signified by letters to Ualentinianus himself, which notwithstanding was not his only end: but (that which in our age hath been practised by divers) with this colour of Piety he covered his burning desire of reigning, for he was determined having now killed Gratianus at Lions, to invade Ualentinianus his Empire. Therefore Ualentinianus terrified with his coming fled out of Italy into Illyrium to Theodosius Emperor of the East. A matter worth the noting; An Heretic being chased by a Catholic flies for succour to a Catholic; of whom he is both rebuked for his heresy, and for the reverence of his Majesty courteously received, and restored to his kingdom. And because the Church did not commend rebellion for Religion sake against a lawful Prince, Maximus was called neither Reformer of the Empire, nor Restorer of the Church, but a Rebel and a Tyrant 
S●zomen. lib. 7 ca 13. Nicephor. li. 12 ca 20. . Seeing these things stand thus, I would now wish the Adversaries that they would forbear to abuse us with their devise and invention, or at least to tell us, whence they have it. Have 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 undertaken, they had easily effected? or that they made a proffer at the least, but when they had tried the fortune of the war, and all other human means, at last yielded and lay down under these wicked Princes? Or were they so very destitute of learned Preachers and Trumpets of the Gospel, that they did not understand, what power the Bishop or People had over a perverse and heretical Prince? What, did the heat of religion and the zeal of the house of God fail them? Let the Adversaries unfold the memory of all Records, and turn over and peruse as long as they will writings Ecclesiastical and profane, believe me they shall never find that the Church in those times (wherein it was much more powerful than now it is) did ever endeavour any thing to the mischief of Princes, although they were wicked, or ever went about to disannul their government, as hath been plainly and plentifully proved by us in our books De Regno 
c lib 3 ca 5. & lib. 4. ca 5. .  
But clean contrary by these things which we read in the writings of the holy fathers, of the power of secular Princes, it is most certain that all in that age did think that no temporal power did in any manner, nor for any cause appertain either to the Bishop of Rome, or chief Bishop, or to the whole Church, but that for temporal punishments, they were to be left to the judgement of God alone. And this as it seemeth was the cause, why those fathers did so seldom and that by the way make any mention of the liberty and impunity of Princes: because indeed in those times there was no controversy about it, but one judgement of all men, which even from the preaching of the Apostles they received in a manner by hand: that a Prince in temporalities hath God only his judge, although in spiritual matters he be subject to the judgement of the Church.  
For the first witness in this case I produce Tertullian who speaking of Emperors, 
d 〈…〉.  They think, 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 above all men, and 
〈…〉.  in another place: we honour the Emperor so as is both lawful for us and expedient for him, as a man, second from God and have obtained, what so ever he is, from God, less than God only, this he desires himself: so is he greater than all men, while he is less than the true God alone. Thus much he professeth not in his particular, but in the general person of all christians, as the certain and undoubted doctrine of the whole Church. Neither let any think to elude this argument, because the Emperors at that time were without the Church, and therefore not subject to the Church. For the law of Christ deprives no man of his right, (which the adversaries themselves confess,) and therefore, as we showed before Kings and Emperors by coming to the Church lose nothing of their temporal interest 
f Cap. 3. .  
In the second place shall S. Ambrose come forth, who writing of David, that heaped murder upon adultery 
g 〈…〉. , He was a King, saith he, he was bound by no laws, because Kings are free from the bands of offences. For they are not called to punishment by any laws, being exempt by the power of their government.  
Thirdly B. Gregory of Towers, 
h Ilb 5 hist. 〈◊〉 7. Armen. lib. 3. cap. 26.  who speaks to Childerike King of France, vexing the Priests of God opprobriously and handling them injuriously, in these words: If any of v●●● King, would transgress the limits of justice, he may be punished by you, but if you shall exceed who shall punish you? for we speak to you, but if you will you hear, and if you will not, who shall condemn you but he, who hath pronounced that he is justice itself.  
Fourthly S. Gregory the Great, who was almost of an age with Gregory of Towers, who being Pope himself, confessed that he was the servant and subject of the Emperor, and with great civility and humility acknowledged that all power was given the Emperor from heaven over all men, as we showed a little before 
l Cap. 3. .  
Fiftly, the worthy Prelate Otto Bishop of Frisingen 
k In Ep. add Iced. ●eno●arb. : Only Kings, saith he, as being set over the laws, are reserved to the examination of God, they are not restrained by the laws of man. From whence was that of his who was both King and Prophet, against thee only have I sinned And afterward. For where as according to the Apostle, it is a fearful thing for every man to fall into the hands of the living God: yet for Kings, who have none above them besides him to fear, it will be so much the more fearful, that they may offend more freely than others.  
I can call in more, and that very many to testify the truth of this matter, but what needs any more? In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word stand 
l Math. 18. . If the asserters of the contrary opinion can bring forth so many testimonies of ancient fathers, or indeed but any one, wherein it is expressly written, that the Church or the supreme head thereof, the Bishop, hath temporal power over secular Kings and Princes, and that he may coerce and chastise them by temporal punishments any way either directly or indirectly, or inflict any penalty either to the whole Kingdom or any part of it: I shall be content, that the whole controversy shall be judged on their side without any appeal from thence. For indeed I desire nothing so much, as that a certain mean might be found, by which the judgement of the contrary side might be clearly confirmed. But while I expect that in vain, in the mean time the truth carries me away with her, conquered and bound into the contrary part.  
Therefore I demand this now of the adversaries: whether it be likely, that those ancient and holy fathers, who have written of the great power and immunity of Kings and Emperors, were so negligent, that of very carelessness they did not put in mind the Princes of their time of this temporal power of the Pope, or that they left not this remembrance, if they made any, consigned under their hands in writing. To the end that Princes should fear not only the secret judgements of God, but also the temporal jurisdiction of the Church and Pope, by which they might be thrown down from their seats, so oft as the Church or the Pope, who is the head thereof shall think it fit in regard of religion and the common weal? certainly to be silent, and to have concealed so great a matter, if it was true, was to abuse Kings and Princes, whom they had persuaded both by writings, and preachings, that they could be judged by God only in temporal matters. Or shall we imagine, that they were so unskilful and ignorant of the authority of the Church, that they knew not that it was endued with such a power? Or in a word, that they were so fearful, 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 upon no certain either authority or reason, but in these last ages devised, and thrust upon the people, by certain fellows, who are seru●ly and basely addicted to the Pope, and so lay a new and strange yoke upon Princes?   

CHAP. IX.  
I Have already plainly showed that the last part of the second reason of the Adversaries is most false: which is, That the Church therefore tolerated Constantius, julianus, Ualens, and other heretic Princes, because she could not chastise them without the hurt of the people. Now will I prove, that the latter part is even as false, to wit, that Henry the IV. Emperor, and other Princes over whom the later Popes have arrogated to themselves temporal power, might be coerced and chastised by the Church without hurt of the people. Which before that I take in hand, I do heartily request not only the friendly Reader, but even the Adversaries themselves, that the question being discussed, they would weigh with themselves, and judge truly and sincerely, whether it were not more easy for the Church to punish those first Princes by the aforesaid ways and means, then to reduce into order the said Henry the IV, by Rodolphus the Swevian? or Philip the Fair by Albert of Austria? Of whom the one scorned and repressed the arrogancy of the Pope: the other, after divers battles fought with divers success, at the length in the last battle defeated his Competitor and Enemy whom the Pope had set upon him: and as for the Pope, of whom 
〈…〉. & alij.  he was excommunicate, he banished him out of Rome, and plagued him with perpetual banishment.  
With how great hurt and spoil to the people the Pope laboured to execute that temporal power upon He●ry the XII. O●to Frisingen witnesseth, (whom Bellarmine worthily calleth most Noble both for blood, and for learning and for integrity of life●) who write, of the Excommunication 
〈◊〉 S. otu● in Chronico. anno 〈◊〉.  and deposition of the said Henry done by Gregory the VII. in this manner 
d Lib. 1. cap ●. de tra●s●●t. Imp & li. 4 the Roman Pont. ca 13. . I read and read again the acts of the Roman Kings and Emperors, and find nowhere, that before this man any of them was excommunicate or deprived of his Kingdom by the Bishop of Rome: unless any man think it is to be accounted for an Excommunication that Philip was for a small time placed amongst the Penitentiaries by the Bishop of Rome, and that Theodosius was ●equestredor suspended from entering into the Church by blessed Ambrose for his bloody murder. In which place it is to be observed, that Otto doth plainly profess, that he finds in former ages no example of privation of a Kingdom, although he propounded these two instances touching Excommunication, if not true at least having a show of true ones. And afterward within a few lines, he writeth thus 
e Lib. 6. Cl●o. ca 35. : But what great mischiefs, how many wars, and hazards of wars followed thereof: how oft miserable Rome was besieged, taken, spotled, because Pope was set up again Pope, and King above King, it is a pain to remember. To be short, the rage of this storm did so hurry and wrap within it so many mischiefs, so many schisms, so many dangers both of souls and bodies, that the same even of itself by reason both of the cruelty of the persecution, and the continuance thereof were sufficient to prove the unhappiness of man's misery. Upon which occasion that time is by an Ecclesiastical writer compared to the thick darkness of Egypt. For the foresaid Bishop Gregory is banished the cuie by the King, and Gibert Bishop of Ravenna is thrust into his place. Further Gregory remaining at Salernum, the time of his death approaching, is reported to have said: I have loved justice, and hate ● iniquity: therefore I die in banishment. Therefore because the kingdom being cut off by the Church, was grievously 〈◊〉 in her Prince, the Church also bereaved of so great a Pastor, who exceeded all the Priests and Bishops of Roman zeal and authority, conceived no small grief.  
Call you this to chastise a Prince without hurt to the people: They that write that the Bishop of Rome, whom they mean in the name of the Church did not tolerate this Emperor, because he could chastise him without hurt to the people, it must needs be that either they have not read this author, or that they have no care of their credit, who ensnare themselves in so manifest an untruth. If they knew not this before, let them learn now at the last out of this grave writer, that that is false which they ignorantly give out for true: and I wish them to consider, and judge unpartially, if it had not been better for that Gregory the Pope, should have suffered the wills & desperate manners of Henry like to Constantius, julianus, Valens, and other Emperors who vexed the Church, and with tears and prayers to intret the goodness of God either for his recovery or destruction, rather than by one insolent and strange act, and that very unnecessary to stir up so many schisms and murders, so many sackings of people and Cities, so many disgraces shameful against the Sea Apostolic, so many wars against the Popes, and other furious Tragedies with the destruction of all the people, and to nourish and continue these being stirred up, to the exceeding mischief of the Church. It may be that Gregory did it of a good mind, (let God judge of the intention) but it cannot be that he did it rightly, wisely, and according to duty, nor but that he erred very wide, according to the manner and counsel of a man, when he assumed that to himself, which in truth was not his: that is to say, the office of deposing an Emperor, and the power to substitute an other in his place, as though the fee of that human kingdom had belonged to him, which that verse doth sufficiently declare, which is reported by Otto, and above is transcribed by us.  Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho. 
Now it is certain, that it is not always well done and according to the will of God, which is done even of men, otherwise very good, through heat of holiness, and a good zeal. Moses. while he killed the Egyptian, with a zeal to defend the Hebrew, sinned. Oza through a zeal to uphold the Ark of the Lord serve, and lying a tone side, touched it, and died. Peter of a zeal to defend his Lord and Master, cut of Malchus his ear, and was rebuked for it. Hence S. Ambrose to Theodosius 
f Lib. 5. epis. 29. . I know that you are godly, merciful, gentle, and peaceable, loving faith and the fear of the Lord: but for the most part something or other deceives us, some have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge 
g Rom. 10. . Inconsiderate zeal often inciteth to mischief.  
Therefore in my opinion, there was a great fault in Pope Gregory about this business, because he did not observe, that it belonged to the duty of the chief Pastor, rather to let pass one man's wickedness unpunished, then through a desire to correct the same, to wrap the innocent and harmless multitude in danger. And therefore he ought not to have excommunicate that Emperor, whose wickedness so great a number of men had conspired to maintain, that they could not be separated without a schism, a renting, nay not without the dissolution of the whole Church. The great light of the Church S. Austin advised the same many ages ago, both holily and wisely, and proved the same clearly out of the writings of the 
h 〈…〉.  Apostle Paul, whose judgement 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 wear, but in ●int and adamant, or if there be any thing more durable and lasting than they. The chastisement, saith he, of many can not be wholesome, 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 mourn, that 〈…〉 from their destruction, 〈…〉 re●caled to holy 
〈…〉.  Ezech●e●● Lest when 〈…〉 they root up the wheat also: nor 〈…〉 the Lord's ●orn●, but they themselves 〈…〉 amongst the 〈…〉. Andtherefore the same 〈…〉 out many who were corrupted 〈…〉 writing to the same 〈◊〉 in his ●econd 〈◊〉, did not again prescribe, that they should not eat with such: for they were many. Neither could it be did of them. 
l 〈…〉.  If any brother be called a fornicator; 〈…〉 any such like that they 〈…〉 much as eat with such, but he saith 
〈…〉.  least when I come again to you, God do humble me, and I lament many 〈…〉 have sinned before, and have not repent, for the 〈…〉 and fornication, which they have committed. By this mourning of his; threatening that they are rather to begun 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 from God, then by that castigation that 〈◊〉 may forbear their company. And a little after, indeed if the contagion of sinning have taken hold of a multitude the 〈◊〉 mercy of the divine discipline is necessary 
〈…〉 , for 〈…〉 that ●● of Excommunication) are both 〈…〉 they prove 〈…〉 more trouble the weak 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. Austin's rule, which also is the rule of the Church, with the practice of Gregory against Henry, but will evidently see, that the Pope erred greatly, that would excommunicate an Emperor, whose party a huge multitude both of the Clergy and laity did follow, with manifest danger of a grievous schism, and much more, when as by an odious sentence he went about to deprive him of the right of his Empire, (to which the Bishop himself had no title in the world: that it is no marvel if as Sig●●ert w●●toth, the said Gregory a little before his death repented him of all those things, which he had done against the Emperor.  
I am willing to set down the place of Sig●bert, because it contemeth not his own opinion, which is suspected to the adversaries, because he followed Henricus his party, but the historical narration of an other author 
o 〈…〉. .  
Pope 〈◊〉, saith he, who is also called Gregory the 7. dieth in banishment at Salernum. O● him I find it thus 〈◊〉: We would have you know who are careful of the Ecclesiastical charge, that the Lord Apostolic 〈◊〉, who also is Gregory, lying now at the point of death, ca●ed to him one of twelve Cardinals, whom he chiefly loved above 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 govern, and by the instigation of the Devil, 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 living and the dead, the spiritually and the la●●y, and willed his own 〈◊〉 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 almost an eye witness of these things. He both in the place produced by us, and also in others, bewrayeth plainly, that he allowed not that decree of the Pope, touching the deposing of the Emperor, but that he holds it to be new, insolent, and unjust. For first for the novelty, and insolency of that Act, he writeth thus; I read and read again the Acts of the Roman Kings and Emperors, and do find no where, that any of them before this was excommunicate, or deprived of his kingdom by the Bishop of Rome. And again in the first book touching the gests of Fredrick. 
〈…〉  Gregory the VII. saith he, who then held the Bishopric of the City of Rome, decrees, that the Emporour as one forsaken of his friends, should be shaken with the sword of Excommunication. The novelty and strangeness of this action did so much more vehemently affect the Empire already moved with indignation, because before that time never any such sentence was known to have been published against the Princes of the Romans. Now he declares the injustice and iniquity of the fact, in divers respects: First, because amongst those evils and mischiefs 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 above Pope, as King above King by which words he shows that both of them by a like right, or ratherby a like wrong was made, that as Pope was set upon Pope by the Emperor unjustly, so also was King unjustly set upon King by the Pope. Then, in that he saith, Because therefore the kingdom in his Prince, etc. 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 kingdom wounded in the Prince, the Church was wounded in the Bishop. Between which seeing he makes no difference of right or wrong, and both of them could not be done justly, it followeth that he thinketh both of them was done unjustly.  
Moreover he calleth as well the defection of Rodolphus, whom the Pope had created Emperor, as the insurrection of Henry his son of the Excommunicate Father, I say he calleth them both openly and simply plain Rebellion, which surely he would never have done, if he had believed that Henry was lawfully deprived of his Empire, for there can be no rebellion, but against a Superior, and therefore it could not be against an Heretic, who if he were justly deprived and deposed was no more a Superior. Therefore he thus writeth of Rodolphus 
b Lab. 1. digest. Frideria. cap 6. . And not long after the two foresaid captains Guelfe and Rodolphus, rebelling against their Prince, upon what occasion it is uncertain, are joined with the Saxons. And a little after: But the Bishop of Rome Gregory, who at this time as it hath beer said, stirred up Princes against the Emperor, writ his letters secretly, and openly to all, that they should create an other Emperor. But here we must know by the way, that he saith, upon what occasion it is doubtful, that it is to be understood of a private occasion, as many are wont to spring between a King and his Nobles: as in our age between Borbonius and king Francis: the Guise and Henry; Orange and Philip, for each of them, both Guelfo and Rodolphus pretended a public occasion, that is to say, the furious behaviour of Henricus, and also for that he was excommunicate and deposed from his kingdom by the Pope, as writeth Albert Schafnaburgensis 
c Dereb German. , and so they covered private hatred as Rebels use to do, with a public pretence. But touching the Son our Bishop Frisingensis writeth in this manner 
d I●b. 7 Ch●on. cap. 8. . Afterward again in the year following, when the Emperor celebrated the Nativity of the Lord at Moguntia, Henry his son enters into rebellion against his Father in the parts of Noricum by the counsel of Theobald a Marquis, and Berengarius an Earl, under the colour of Religion, because his Father was excommunicate by the Bishop of Rome: and having drawn to his party certain great Personages out of the East part of France, Alemania, and Baioaria, he enters into Saxony, a country and Nation easily to be animated against their King. here let the Reader observe two things. One that this Author, a man notable for knowledge and piety, calleth this insurrection of Henry the son, against Henry the Father, a Rebellion: the other, that both here and in other places, he ever calls Henry the Father, King and Emperor, although he had been now about five and twenty years excommunicate and deprived of his Kingdom by the Pope's sentence: and first Rodolphus, and then 〈◊〉, were set into his place by the Pope and the Rebels, whereby he shows sufficiently that he thinks that the Pope hath no authority to depose Kings, or to determine of their temporal government: and therefore that the Decree of Gregory was neither just nor lawful; otherwise neither Henry could have been called King, nor his adversaries Rebels without injury to the Bishop of Rome.  
There is also another place of the same Authors, wherein he 〈◊〉 the same more plainly, that is, that the Pope by that excommunication and abdication hath taken no right of his Kingdom from Henry, for after that he had related that 〈◊〉, who was son in law to Rodol●us, (whom as hath been said, the Pope had created King) having killed his Father in law, and usurped the Dukedom of Sw●uia, as granted to him by his Father in law, and one the other side that Henry, (who had been deposed by the Pope's sentence had granted the same Dukedom, to a certain Nobleman of Swevia, (whose name was Fredrick) who forced Bertolphus to conditions of peace, & ad ex 〈…〉 Ducaius: he addeth, This Ber●ode although in this business he yieldeth both to the Empire and to justice, yet he is reported to have been a re●olute and a valiant man. Behold how he using no manner of Circuition affirms, that both Empire and justice stands on his part, against whom the Pope had long before passed the sentence of Deposition: but not with Rodolphus, being called to the Kingdom by the authority of the Pope, with this Epigraphe, now twice related above.  Petra dedit Petro etc. 
Lastly seeing he seriously saith and teacheth, That Kings have none above them but God whom they may fear: doth he not even by this conclusion teach us, that the Bishop of Rome hath no temporal authority, whereby he may dispose in any manner of their kingdoms and governments? And surely although there were nothing else, for which that heinous action of Pope Gregory might be misliked, surely so many lamentable and disastrous events, so many fatal and woeful accidents, which springing out of that jurisdiction which was then first usurped and practised by the Pope against the Emperor, afflicted the whole Empire full five and twenty years, and rend the Church asunder with a continual schism, may be an argument to us, that that Decree was not made by a divine inspiration, but by an human passion: nor that it proceeded from an ordinary jurisdiction of the holy Sea Apostolic, but either from an extraordinary ambition, or an ignorance of his power and inconsiderate zeal of him that held the Sea. For it is not likely that God, who is the Author of justice and protector of the Church, and who hath made the first executions of the spiritual power of the Church exceeding fearful by present miracles, and horrible effects, would not also in like manner second with some singular miracle or extraordinary assistance that first execution of so great and so high an authority and power of his Church: especially seeing he was with so many prayers invocated by the Bishop for his help, and the 
* See the admonition to the Reader.  Apostles themselves entreated with a solemn supplication, in these words: Go too therefore you most holy Princes of the Apostles, and by your authority interposed confirm that which I have said, that all men may now at the last understand if you can bind and loose in heaven, that you are also as well able it earth to take away and give Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, and whatsoever else mortal men may have. Let Kings now learn by this King's example, and all the Princes of the world, what you are able to do in heaven, and how much you are in favour with God, and hereafter let them be afraid to contemn the commandments of holy Church. But execute with speed upon Henry, that all men may understand, that this Child of iniquity falleth out of his Kingdom, not by chance, but by your care. Yet this I would entreat at your hands, that he being led by repentance, may at your request obtain favour of the Lord in the day of judgement 
f 〈…〉. . These and such like prayers being powered out to God and the Princes of the Apostles, and Curses and Imprecations in solemn manner cast upon Henry, who would not think that God, who by his Apostles 
* See the admonition to the Reader.  preserves his Church with a continual protection would not easily suffer himself to be entreated, and would not presently hear this first supplication of the Pope in the beginning of so great an authority of the Church to be made manifest, if any such authority had belonged to the Church. Whereas notwithstanding clean contrary, every thing fell out cross and unhappy against the Pope, and against the authors and fautors of the Pope's party, whilst Henry in the mean time triumphed and held his Empire still, for that which he suffered from his son at last after five and twenty years, (under a show of religion as Frisingensis saith,) that makes little or nothing to this matter. This was a pretext only for a wicked son who was sick of the Father before the time: but the true cause was ambition, and the burning desire of rule, quae multos mortales fallos fieri subegit 
g Salu●t. . and hath oftentimes armed with cruel and hellish hatred the Fathers against the Children, and chose, as we have showed at large other where 
h lib. 6. de reg ●● cap. 4. : One said excellently well, 
i 〈…〉.  patris long●o● vita malo filio seruit us videtur.   

CHAP. XI.  
BY this, as I suppose, it is evident enough, that the Church in times past did not tolerate Constantius, julianus, Ualens, and other wicked Princes, because she then disinherited 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 less hurt to the people, have chastised those ancient Princes. Than not only Henry the fourth, from whose business so lasting a schism did spring, but either Otho the fourth, or Frederick the second, or Philip Pulcher, or Lewes the eleventh, or john Navarre, or others, against whom the Bishops, being puffed up with the success of their affairs, drew forth their Sentences of Excommunication and deprivation of Kingdoms, not for heresy, nor for the evil government of State, nor at the request of the subjects, but even inflamed and maliciously carried with their proper affections, I mean their private hatred. To conclude, not for that the state of the Church in that age would have her Bishops more ready than in this time to suffer martyrdom: for then the Church was in very safe estate, and as we say, sailed in the haven, as having been now anciently founded upon the Apostolic constitutions, and sufficiently established by the labour and blood of martyrs. Yea, such than was the state of the Church, that there was much less need for Bishops to be ready for martyrdom, than at this time: for that so great a multitude, then being as it were sprinkled with the fresh blood of the martyrs, did in a manner savour of nothing but martyrdom, that the Pastor was no less admonished of his duty by the example of the flock, than the several persons of the people by the example of the Pastor.  
But now, o lamentable case! the case is quite otherwise: the Church is tossed with most grievous tempests, and only not overwhelmed as yet with the fury of heretics, many, even of those who desire to be called Catholics, being so affected, that they are not willing to suffer any great troubles, much less undergo death, for true religion: wherefore, that life and heat may be given to that lukewarmness, and that men might be stirred up to the readiest way, and as it were the shortest cut, for their health, who seeth not that there is need of Bishops, to show the way both by word and example? and both to compose them themselves, and to exhort others rather to martyrdom, than to arms and insurrections, to which we are prone by nature? Who would not judge, that the fatherly piety of Clement the eight, joined with excellent wisdom, whereby he endeavoureth to reduce to an●itie, and to keep in 〈◊〉 Christian Kings and Princes, is by infinite degrees 〈…〉 for the Church, than the martial fury's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eleventh, whereby he wickedly and cruelty sought to set Italy, France, Germany, Spain, 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 guilty and 〈…〉 of the saith, but also courtcously reverenced them, and honoured them with regal titles and dignities: or else we must needs think, that they spared those manner of Princes for the reverence of Majesty, & the power which in temporal matters is inferior to God alone: or surely we must believe, that besides the reasons delivered by the adversaries, there is yet some better behind, which none hitherto hath brought forth, nor ever will, as I suppose. For that which a certain seditious fellow hath written in that infamous work which he writ against Kings, 
a 〈…〉.  to elude the ●orce of the former objection touching the toleration of the ancient Fathers. As though, saith he, we are to think that there is the same reason of the Church to be established and which is established already, & that the vine ought ●●t to be planted and watered before it be pruned: but that then that power was given to the Church, when that of the Prophet was fulfilled: Kings shall be thy Nurse's, & with a countenance cast to the earth shall they worship thee, & shall licks the dust of 〈…〉 
b Esa● 49. . that surely is such a to●, as I do think not worth the answering, seeing I suppose the Author himself scarce knows what he saith. For ●hat? were not the rotten members of the Church wont to be cut off even from her infancy & first beginning? doth he not know, that that spiritual incision, which is proper to the Church, begun even with the Church herself? 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 Divine, & a worse Vine-dresser, seeing he even in the very first planting, shreds off whatsoever is super fluous and unprofitable in the vine, and suffers not the rotten and faulty branches to stick out of the ground: afterwards when it is a little growenup, he lops and cuts it, lest it should be overcharged with unprofitable and unfruitful stems. But if he mean corporal incision, he ought to know that the Church hath no skill of blood, I mean, that she doth not execute death upon any, unless peradventure it falls out by miracle, as in the person of Ananias and Saph●ra 
c Act. 5. . But what, doth he think that the Church was not perfectly established in the times of Ambrose, Hierome and Austin▪ Or that it was not sufficiently planted & watered that at that time it might be conveniently shred? 
d Tract. 17. in ●an.  Surely S. Austin in one place affirms, that very few in his time were found, that thought evil of Christ. Why then did the Church tolerate Ualens, Ualentinianus, Heraclitus, and others? for from Constantine the Great, that Prophecy, which he allegeth, was fulfilled. But it was not yet time to cut the Lords vineyard. A worthy reason sure, and to be ranked amongst that follows fooleries, which in another place 
e Lib 5. ca 6. de Regno.  we set down by themselves. Now let us go to the maintainers of the indirect power.   

CHAP. XII.  
THese men's opinion I have set down above in the first and fifth chapters: which is, That the Pope, by reason of his spiritual Monarchy, hath temporal power indirectly: and that sovereign, to dispose of the temporalties of all christians, and that he may change kingdoms, and take them from one to give them to another if it be necessary for the health 
Aduersariorum sententia 〈◊〉 antiquitati ecclesiastics con-tradic●t.  of souls. Against which opinion there are so many things, that I hold it to be utterly improbable, if not incredible. For first of all, what is more contrary to it, then that the whole christian antiquity ever judged, that Kings are less than God only, that they have God only for their judge, that they are subject to no laws of man, and can be punished or coerced with no temporal punishments 
a 〈…〉. , and therefore that which the authors of the law said, Princeps 
b 〈…〉.  〈…〉 est that the Grecians chiefly understand, of penal laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is; the Prince offending is not punished. None of these things can stand with the opinion of the adversaries. For if it be true that the Pope may dispose of kingdoms and states of secular Princes, and take from them their sceptres, and all manner of dignity, it followeth necessarily, that the Pope is superior and even judge over Kings in temporal matters, and besides that all Kings may be subject to temporal punishments: which is directly opposite, as may be to the former opinion of the ancient Fathers. The necessity of the consecution is plain by this, for that he who judgeth an other lawfully, must of necessity be superior over him, whom he judgeth. (For an equal hath not authority over an equal 
c 1. N●m magist atus D de recep qui 〈◊〉. , much less an inferior over a superior) and also because, the deprivation of a Kingdom, even as the publication of goods, is to be reckoned amongst temporal punishments, and those very grievous too.  
What I pray you, that the Bishops themselves confess that Kings have no superior in temporalities. 
d 〈…〉.  They have, and they have not, cannot be both true: Therefore it is false, that Kings have no superior in temporalities, if an other may by law take their temporalities from them and give them to an other. For if this be not an act of superiority, as I may speak, I know not surely, what it is to be superior, or if to condemn a King unheard, and to punish him as far as his regal dignity comes to, be not to be the judge of a King, we must confess that no motion either of a judgement or of a judge hath been delivered and lest us by our Elders. For in that they place the difference in the words, direct & indirect, that belongs not to the power of judging, and to the effect of the judgement, but only to the manner and way, of acquiring so great a power. For the Canonists do say, that the Pope hath received directly of Christ the temporal dominion of the whole world. But these men, I mean the Divines, deem that he received such a dominion directly, as if you should say, by itself, simply, and without consideration of another thing: but only indirectly, that is, by consequence, in regard of that spiritual power, which he hath received directly from the Lord. Therefore this difference out of these words ought to be referred to the beginning and mean of acquiring a temporal power but not to the force and effect of the same. For whether you say, makes nothing for the strength and power of the Pope's judgement over Kings: unless peradventure some may say, that the Pope if he be an ill man, may tyrannize over the Parsons and Estates of Kings more freely indirectly, then directly.  
But if the opinions of the adversaries 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 courtesy. And this I do easily prove even out of the very principles and grounds of the adversaries. The Pope may take from any man his kingdom, and give it to another, if so be that it be necessary for the health of souls: But to judge and determine, if it be necessary, belongs to the same Pope, of whose judgement, whether it be right or wrong, none can judge, 
e Can. pat●t. can al●orum 〈◊〉 q. 3.  therefore where he listeth he may deprive every man of his kingdom and give it to another.  
The Proposition in this argument, is the very opinion of the adversaries: and the Assumption is without controversy amongst all Catholics: for none but an Heretic will deny that the charge of souls belongs to the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Lastly, the conclusion follows necessarily of the premises because if the Pope will transfer any kingdom from one to another, he may say that he judgeth it necessary for the health of souls, and none 〈…〉 of has judgement as hath been said. And 〈…〉 his pleasure whether he will take from 〈…〉 but that all Kings 〈…〉 th●● kingdoms, which 〈…〉 at the 〈…〉 Behold in how 〈…〉 Christia● Kings and Princes should stand, 
〈…〉  〈…〉, that the Pope hath power indirectly to 〈…〉 all temporalities of Christians, who shall mea●● t●at 〈…〉 own pleasure and judgement, that 〈…〉 for him, if he be displeased, then to 〈…〉 his indirect power, so o●t 〈…〉 private 〈◊〉, o● the ambigu 〈…〉 forward, or even 〈…〉 and contemned, 〈…〉. Where of ●●●face 〈…〉 have given 〈…〉 all of i●any, they 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 mighty 〈…〉 of the pontifice 〈…〉 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 abettor, of the indirect power.  
〈…〉 all 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 and jurisdiction 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 wrongfully, as Augustire reasoneth 〈…〉 against the Donatists. Therefore it cannot be that the Pope, should justly exercise any temporal jurisdiction over secular Kings and Princes, unless it be certain that the same is given him either by the law of God or of man.. But neither in divine, nor human laws is any such place found, which confers any such power upon 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 me Kings reign. All power is given to you. The Kings of the Nations rule over them. The heart of the King is in the hand of God. I will give them a King in mine anger. My son, fear the Lord and the King. Fear God honour the King: and every where the like speeches.  
Lastly, seeing this temporal power and jurisdiction of the Pope, whereof we speak, is not found to be comprised neither in the express word of God in the Scriptures, nor by the tradition of the Apostles received as it were by hand, nor practised by use and custom in the Church for these thousand years 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 necessity of faith should force us to admit it? or with what authority can they persuade the same unto us? Our opinion say they, is proved by reasons and examples: how glad, say I would I be, that that were true. But we ought chiefly to know this, that only those reasons are fit to prove this opinion of theirs, whereof evident proofs and demonstrations are made, which none of them hath hitherto brought, nor as I think could bring. For as touching reasons only probable, and likely, whereof Dialectike syllogisms do consist, their force is not such, as can conclude and give away from Kings and Princes their sovereign authority from them, seeing that even in daily brabbles about trifling matters, nothing can be concluded, unless the Cause of the Suitor, be proved by manifest and evident proofs and witnesses: and therefore the Actor not proving, he that is convented, although himself perform nothing, shall carry the business 
b I q●● accusers 〈…〉. l. 〈◊〉 ● de prob. cap. 1. de probat. . But the help is very weak and feeble in Examples, because they only show what was done, not what ought to be done: those excepted which are commended or dispraised by the testimony of the Scriptures, which seeing they are thus, let us now see with what reasons the Adversaries continue their opinion.   

CHAP. XIII.  
THere is not one amongst them all, who are of the Pope's party, as I said before, who hath either gathered more diligently, or propounded more sharply, or concluded more briefly and 〈◊〉, than the worthy Divine Bellarmine, whom I mention for honours sake, who although he gave as much to the Pope's authority in temporalities as honestly he might, and more than he ought, yet could he not satisfy the ambition of the most imperious man Sixius the fist: Who affirmed that he had supreme power over all Kings and Princes of the whole earth, and all People's, Countries and Nations, committed unto him not by human but by divine ordinance 
a In P●l●a contra Hen 3 ●ra Rege●. . And therefore he was very near, by his Pontificial censure, to the great hurt of the Church to have abolished all the writings of that Doctor, which do oppugn heresy with great 
* See the admonition to the Reader.  success at this day: as the Fathers of that order, whereof Bellarmine was then, did seriously report to me. Which matter comforts me, if peradventure, that which I would not, any Pope possessed with the like ambition shall for the like cause forbid Catholics to read my books. Let him do what he will, but he shall never bring to pass that I ever forsake the Catholic, Apostolic, and Romish faith, wherein I have lived from a Child to this great age: or die in another profession of faith than which was prescribed by Pius the 4.  
We will then bring their reasons hither out of Bellarmine for they are five in number: leaving others, especially Bozius his fancies, which are unworthy that a man of learning should trouble himself to refute.  
The first reason is, which Bellarmine propounds in these words. The civil power is subject to the spiritual power, when each of them is a part of the Christian commonwealth: therefore a spiritual Prince may command over temporal Princes and dispose of temporal matters in order to a spiritual good, for every superior may command his inferior. And lest any peradventure 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 civil power, not only as Christian, but also as Civil, is subject to the ecclesiastic, as it is such, first it is proved by the ends of them both, for the temporal end is subordinate to the spiritual end, as it appears: because temporal felicity is not absolutely the last end, and therefore aught to be referred to the felicity eternal. Now it is plain out of Aristotle, Lib. 1. Eth. cap. 1. that the faculties are so subordinate, as the ends are subordinate.  
Secondly, Kings and Bishops, Clergy and Laity, do not make two common wealths, but one, that is one Church, for we are all one body. Rom. 11. and 1 Corinth. 12. But in every body the members are connexed and depending one of another: but it is no right assertion, that spiritual things depend on temporal; therefore temporal things depend of spiritual, and are subject to them.  
Thirdly, if a temporal administration hinder a spiritual good, in all men's judgement the temporal Prince is bound to change that manner of government, yea even with the loss of a temporal good: therefore it is a sign that the temporal power is subject to the spiritual. Thus he.  
Which that I may satisfy in order, I answer: that it is very false, which in this first reason is thrust upon us, for a true, certain, and sound foundation, false, I say, that the Civil power is subject to the Spiritual, since both of them is a part of the Christian common weal: unless they understand it thus, that it is subject in spirituals, and again that this aught to be subject to that in temporals, since these two powers are so parts of the Christian commonweal, as neither hath authority over other; as which when they were free and of themselves absolute, out of a mutual love closed together. Therefore each of them acknowledgeth and reverenceth the other in his order and office, and each doth exercise her function at her pleasure: only there is between them a certain consent and fellowship conspiring in the conservation and maintenance of the Christian commonweal: for by both the powers, or (to use Gene●rardes 
b In Psal. 2.  words) by both the Magistra●tes, ecclesiastic and 〈◊〉 the Church is maintained, defended, and flourisheth: which that she might be protected and preserved tight and upright. 
〈◊〉 ●.   
— alterius sic 
〈…〉 po●t.   
Altera p●●●it opemres, & coniurat ami●●.  
that as long as they keep this society, the Christian common weal is like to flourish and abound with innumerable commodities of concord and peace: But when they dissolve this combination thus contracted, certainly the spiritual power, though it excel with a divine virtue, yet being now weakened in the ere of the world, and deprived of his corporal helps, for the most part is contemned: and the temporal although it be mighty and strong, hasteneth through all villainy and fury to her own destruction, being destitute of heavenly grace which she enjoyed by the society of the spiritual power. Notwithstanding neither can the power ecclesiastic redress her wrongs the more by herself, but by spiritual weapons, nor the temporal power work upon the ecclesiastic, but by visible and corporal arms, whereof I would to God, that both the monuments of former times, and also our own age & memory did not put us in mind through so many lamentable examples. And this surely is no other thing then that which I said before, Hosius said to Constantius the Arrian. 〈…〉 lawful for us, to hold any Empire on earth, neither have you power over sacrifices and holy things, being an Emperor and which S. Bernard to Eugenius the Pope, These law and earthly businesses, have judges, Kings, and 
〈…〉  Princes of the earth. Why do you invade an others borders? why reach you your scythe into another man's harvest? Therefore these two powers ecclesiastic and Politic are not so parts of the Christian commonweal, that one should be Master over the other: but so are parts, as which when they were single, and divided one from the other, with a singular concord and union joined together at the last, that each of them might afford help and succour to the other, and by mutual and interchanged courtesies and offices might oblige and demerit one another. Neither is it to be granted because the power ecclesiastic is holier, and worthier than the Politic, therefore that this is subject to her: but only (as it often cometh to pass in a civil society) that she being the worthier and the richer applied herself to this, which is neither so noble nor so wealthy, for the benefit of them both: so as both of them remain free in that society, and neither depend any way of other. Therefore excellently writes Dried● to this purpose 
d ●●b. 2. the libe●. Ecclesia●. ●ap. 2. . Christ (saith he) severed the duties of these two powers: that the one might govern divine and spiritual matters and persons, the other prefane and worldly: and after, Behold thou plainly sees that Christ hath severed the duties of both the powers: Therefore the distinction of the Ecclesiastical power Papal, from the secular and Imperial power is made by the law of God. And after in the same chapter: From whence the Pope and the Emperor are in the Church, not as two chief Rulers divided between themselves, whereof neither knoweth other, or reverenceth as his superior, (for this aught to acknowledge and reverence him inspirituall cases, and he this in temporal, and according to the old Gloss, in Ca●. Hadrian, 63. as he is father to this in spirituals, so is this to him in temporals) because a kingdom divided against itself, will come to ruin. Nor again are they as two judges subordinate, so as the one receives his jurisdiction from the other. But they are as two rulers, who are the Ministers of one God ●esigned 〈…〉 divers offices, so as the Emperor ●ouerns 〈…〉 persons, for a peaceable Society in this world, and the Pope rules spiritual to the advancement of Christian faith and charity.  
But Bellarmine also himself. Mark, quoth he, that the Sun and the● Moon is not the same Star, and as the Sun did not constitute the Moon, but God; so also, that the Pontificate and 〈…〉 is not the same, nor one absolutely depend on the other Surely the Sun and the Moon are two great lights, when Pope Innocent 〈◊〉 interpreteth by an allegory, Two dignities which are the Pontifical authority, and regal power: and compares that to the Sun, this to the Moon. From whence I reason on this manner. As the Moon is no less the Moon, nor consisteth the less of herself, when she departs from the Sun, and by wandering looseth the light she borrowed on him, then when she is enlightened with his beams in herfull Orb and Aspect, and in neither regard either she depends of him, or he of her, but both holding the order and manner of their institution do service both to God and the world: so also the Kingly or Politic power resting on her proper strength, sub●●teth al●aies by herself: and although she receive great light 〈◊〉 the Pontifical and spiritual power, to live well and 〈◊〉, yet is not changed at all her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Essence 〈…〉 her approach, nor by her departure, nor 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 much less is she subject to her, when she 〈◊〉 to her. Now it remaineth that we severally declare the faults of the reasons, wherewith Bellarmine supposeth that his first reason is underpropped.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
THerefore touching the first: I do constantly deny, that there is any such ordination or subordination of the ends of their powers, so far as their powers are such. For the end of Politic or Civil power, so far as it is politic absolutely containeth no more, than a temporal 〈◊〉. I mean, the Common-good, and a well ordered tranquillity for the quiet conduct of life, as Bellarmine himself confesseth in another place. The Civil power, saith he, hath her Princes, Laws, judges, etc. and likewise the ecclesiastic her Bishops, Canons, judgements. That hath for end a temporal peace; this eternal salvation. Neither doth this Civil power proceed further, and is referred to none other end, as it is such. For in that it aspireth to eternal happiness it hath not that of herself: not I say so far, as it is Politic doth she direct her endeavours thither, as to her last scope: but in respect that she is spiritual, or else is furthered by the society and Counsels of the ecclesiastic power, As appeareth by innumerable both peoples and Cities, in whom the Civil power was strong and powerful by severity of laws, although they had very slender or no notion at all of this everlasting happiness, whereof we speak. This also the Apostle declares 
a 1. ad Titu:.  when he wills us to pray for Kings, and all that are in authority, that we may live a peaceable life in all piety and chastity: ascribing peace and tranquillity of life to the Politic government, but piety and chastity to Christian discipline. Therefore to speak in one word we must know, that the ends of human actions are in the intention and not in the understanding, that is to say, not that which the understanding can invent by discourse of reason, is the end of the Action, but that which the will doth desire to attain by doing, while the mind meditates on the Action, that is the end of Action. Whence Navarrus saith very well, 
b In relect. cap. no●●t num 92. de. 〈◊〉.  That the end of the Laike power is the good, happy, and quiet temporal life of men, which also is the end of the laws, which proceeded from the same. And that the end of the ecclesiastic power is an everlasting supernatural life, and that the same is the end, of the laws which proceed from her. I would prosecute this further, but that I think that the matter is plain enough to men of wit even by Philosophy itself.  
But the second reason is so frivolous and captious, as nothing can be spoken more fond, or be gathered more unsoundly, for is there any old wife so doting, as understands not the weakness of this consecution, They are members of one body, therefore one depends of another. For neither doth a foot depend of a foot, nor an arm of an arm, nor a shoulder of a shoulder, but they are joined to some third and middle member, by themselves or by other members, to which they adhere. And is it not gathered by the same manner of reasoning, and by the same argument plainly;  

The arms of every man be members of one body:  
But in every body the members are connexed and depending one ●● another, but it is not rightly affirmed. That the right depends of the left: Ergo  
The left arm of every man depends of the right, and is subject to it.   
Who would not laugh at such kind of Arguments so full of vanity? I hate those miserable demonstrations, which do rather enwrap and enfold the matter they have in hand with qu●●ckes, illusions and captious sophistications, then explain the same, for as the arms are knit to the shoulders and the shoulders are knit to the neck and head; nor the right arm or the right shoulder is subject to the left, or contrarily; so the power spiritual and temporal, or ecclesiastic and Politic, although they be members of one Politic body, and parts of one Christian commonweal and Church, yet neither is subject to the other: and neither can without great sin press and encroach upon the borders and jurisdiction of the other: but both, as it were the shoulders of one body are knit to the head which is Christ. Whereof this, I mean the Politic prescribeth to the Citizens and Subjects, the precepts of living wherein the peace and tranquillity of human society is maintained; and the other, raiseth and instructeth men's minds to the supernatural contemplation of immortality and eternal happiness: (which doth subsist with Civil tranquillity, and sometimes without it) whereof it follows that these powers are divided and severed in the same Christian Commonweal, so as neither can be subject to other so fair forth as it is such. And surely unless Bellarmine confess this he will be convinced by his own doctrine delivered other where: for in his third book, 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 himself God, seeing he will not be in aged by the Church nor by any man: he shows that the consequence is saulty, in an argument drawn from Kings, who also themselves have no judge in earth, as concerning temporalties. The Kings of the earth (saith he) certainly acknowledge no judge in earth, in the point which appertains to politic matters, shall there be therefore as many Gods as there be Kings? What other thing is it, I pray you, that Kings have no judge in earth, as concerning politic matters, then that which we will prove, that the Politic power is distinguished from the ecclesiastic, and that the Pope can by no means dispose and judge of the same? For if he could, surely either Kings should have a judge in earth, even, As touching politic matters, or the Pope must always dwell in heaven. Therefore it cannot be but that Bellarmine either disagreeth from himself, or that he hath slipped for want of memory, or that which I believe not, that he desires to vary and change the truth, when as in one place he affirmeth for certain and granted that Kings have no judge in earth, as concerning Politic matters: and in another place he sets the Pope as judge over all Kings and Princes, who may judge and depose them, and at his pleasure dispose of all their kingdoms and estates. For whereas he makes the distinction in these words, directly and indirectly, that belongeth only to the form and manner of proceeding, but not to the force and working of the judgement. For it is ever true that he hath a judge in earth as concerning temporalties, whom the Pope judgeth in temporalties what way soever, either directly or indirectly, And I pray you, what odds is there, in regard of the misery and calamity of a King, that is judged by the Pope, and deprived of his kingdom, whether the Pope hath done it directly, as if he should give sentence, upon the King of Sicily or Naples, as the direct Lord of the fee upon his vassal: or h●th do●●●t indirectly, as upon other Kings, who are 〈◊〉 subject to him by any Ch●ntelar law, it so be a like 〈…〉 both the judgements: And this is suffi 〈…〉 argument. No, let us examine what 〈…〉.  
〈…〉 is plain even 〈…〉 ●●thered thereof by the Au 〈…〉 ●temporall power is subject to 〈…〉 to prove a matter by daemon 〈…〉 bring●th soo●th a sig●e, and that surely 〈…〉 which many times de●●●ues us 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 than a temporal good, the which is true and we confess it. For if one be more ●orthy than another, it doth not follow by and by that the less 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 subjection. Therefore we grant that a Pr●●ce in the case propounded aught to change the ●orm of C●uill administ●at 〈…〉 to ●o it by the church or by the h●a● thereof and chief Pastor in earth, which is the Pope; but o●●l●●● Sp●●●tuall punishment, the horror whereo● to a good man 〈◊〉 grievous than all the pu 〈…〉 by the testi●o●●e of a 〈…〉 it hath with 〈…〉 but not by temporal punishment, 
〈…〉  as is 〈…〉 of Kingdom, seeing a 〈…〉 poralti●●, Therefore as much a 〈…〉 he is to be left to the divine judgement a 〈…〉. Hence ●●dorus whose opinion is registered amongst the Canons, 
d 23 q 〈…〉  Whether the peace and discipline of the Church be increased by faithful Princes, or 〈…〉 of them who hath delivered and committed the Church to their power.   

CHAP. XV.  
Although this last Argument is sufficiently weakened by that which hath been said, yet it is worth the labour to make a little further discourse, and more at large to explain my whole meaning touching this point. Therefore we must understand, that all Kings and Princes christian, as they are the children of the Church, are subject to the ecclesiastic power, and that they ought to obey the same, so oft as the commandeth spiritual things: which unless they shall do, the Church, by the power and jurisdiction which she hath over them, may inflict spiritual Censures upon them, and strike them with the two edged sword of the spirit: although she ought not to do at always, (as hath been before declared) but with that s●ord only, not with the visible and temporal sword al●● 
Cap 9  because 〈◊〉 sword is committed only to the Civil and Secular power. Wherefore so oft as the spiritual power, standeth in need of the assistance of the temporal sword; she is accustomed to entreat the favour and friendship of the Civil power, her friend and companion. chose that ecclesiastic Princes and Prelates, are subject to civil Princes in temporalities, and aught to obey them in all things, which belong to their civil government, in no other manner, than the Civil are bound to obey them commanding spiritual things, so as they be such as repugn neither the Catholic faith, nor good manners. Yea that not so much as the Pope himself, is excluded and free from this temporal subjection for any other reason, but because that by the bounty of Kings he hath been made a King himself, I mean a civil Prince, acknowledging no man for his superior in temporalties, and thus much doth that most eager patron of ecclesiastic jurisdiction confess, whom most mensay is Bellarmine in his answer, ad precipua capita Apologiae, etc. That opinion (saith he) is 
b Pag. 114.  general and most true, that all men ought altogether to obey the superior power. But because power is twofold spiritual and temporal, ecclesiastic and Politic, of which one belongeth to Bishops, the other to Kings: the Bishops must be subject to the Kings in temporal matters, and the Kings to the Bishops in spiritual, 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 only a chief Prince ecclesiastic, to whom all Christians are subject by the law of God, but is also in his Provinces a Prince temporal, nor acknowledgeth any superior in temporalties; no more than other absolute and sovereign Princes do in their kingdoms and jurisdictions, hence it cometh to pass; that in earth he hath no power over him.  
Wherefore not because he is chief Bishop, and spiritual father of all Christians, is he therefore exempted from temporal subjection, but because he possesseth a temporal principality, which is subject to none. Therefore in those matters, which belong to the safety of the common wealth, and to civil society, and are not against the divine ordinance, the Clergy is no less bound to obey the sovereign Prince temporal, than other Citizens are: as 
* In lib. 5 de Cle●ic● Cap. 18.  Bellarmine himself declareth excellently well; adding also a reason, secondly, for that Clergy men, besides that they are Clergy men, they are also Citizens, and certain civil parts of the common wealth. Clergy men, (saith he) are not any way exempted from the obligation of civil laws, which do not repugn the sacred Canons, or the clerical duty. And although he saith, that he speaks not of coactive obligation, yet is it more true, that they may be constrained by a temporal judge to the obedience of the laws, where the cause doth require, that in that case they should not enjoy the benefit of their exemption, which it is certain enough, that they received from the laws of Emperors and Princes. For in vain doth he challenge the benefit of laws, who offends against them.  
Hence it is, I mean out of this society and fellowship of clerks and laikes in the common weal, that in public assemblies the Clergy, if they be to consult of temporal affairs, do fit in the next place to the Prince. Therefore spiritual power, (by the word of power, it is usual to signify the persons, endued with power) doth both command and obey politic power, and the politic her again. And this is that indeed, whereof B. Gregory the Pope, admonisheth Maurice the Emperor, 
* Lib 4 Epist. 75.  let not our Lord, (saith he) out of his earthly authority be the sooner offended with our Priests, but out of his excellent judgement, even for his sake, whose servants they are, let him so rule over them, as that also he yield them due reference. That is to say, let him rule over them, so far forth as they are Citizens, and parts of the common wealth: yield reverence, as they are the Priests of God and spiritual fathers, to whom the Emperor himself, as a child of the Church, is in subjection. And this course and vicissitude of obeying and commanding between both the powers, is by a singular precedent declared of 
e 3. Reg cap 1.  Solomon, 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. Go thy ways to Auathoth, to thy house, and surely thou shalt die: but to day, I will not slay thee, because thou hast carried the Ark of the Lord, before David my father, and hast endured trouble, in all those things, wherein my father was troubled. Therefore Solomon dismissed Abiathar, that he should not be a Priest of the Lord. Behold how Solomon shows, that in a civil and temporal business he had authority over the Priests, whereas notwithstanding it is evident that in the old law the Priests were over the Kings, and used 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 fain have it 
f Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29.  that Solomon did this not as a King, but as a Prophet and an executioner of divine justice, I require some proof of this interpretation, seeing it appears no where by the Scriptures, and therefore rests upon mere conjecture only. For in that place, there is no mention made, neither of any commandment specially given by the Lord, nor of any extraordinary power delegated unto him, but rather the clean contrary, Solomon himself declareth openly enough, that he executed this judgement as King according to the ordinary power of the government which he en●o●ed in the right of his kingdom, by using this preface: The Lord liveth, who hath established me, and placea me upon the throne of David my father.  
And indeed the whole business was not spiritual or ecclesiastic but temporal and politic only, wherein Solomon knew very well that the King as King was the lawful and ordinary judge, and therefore we do not read, that by one interest he gave judgement upon Adoniah, and by an other upon Abiathar. Again where Bellarmine to strengthen his interpretation takes hold of those words, vtim●leatur sermo Domini, etc. 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 usual law, and an ordinary authority, as in this place, as of that, which is fulfilled either extraordinarily by some wonderful event, or by the impiety and tyranny of men? The wicked when they crucified our Saviour, 
g 〈…〉.  divided his garments, that it might be fulfilled, which is spoken by the Prophet, or, that the Scripture might be fulfilled 
h 〈…〉. . Therefore such kind of words are wont to be added in the Scriptures, to show the truth of the prediction and prophecy so as to draw an argument from hence to gather an other matter, must seem very ridiculous and childish. Indeed Solomon in that case, was the executer of the divine justice. I allow it: he was a Prophet also, it is true, and what then? And yet we read that he did that, by his kingly authority, and common or ordinary power, and none, not the least mention made of any special commandment. Neither is there any place in Scriptures, where we may read that this jurisdiction, was by special name committed to him. Moreover it is not likely, that the author of the story, being inspired with the holy ghost, would without any touch or warning pass over so different causes of so great a business and of so great weight, if so be the King had passed his judgement by virtue 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 deceived, when he saith. That it is no wonder, if in the old testament the sovereign 
Eod. lib. 17. cap.  power, was temporal, in the new spiritual, because in the old testament the promises were only temporal, and in the new spiritual and eternal. For neither in the old testament was the sovereign power altogether temporal, neither is spiritual in the new. But each in his own kingdom, that is, in the jurisdiction of his own power, as is most meet, did then bear sway, and at this time ruleth: even then, say I, both of them contented with their own precincts, abstained from that, which was not their own, that neither the temporal power, invaded the spiritual jurisdiction, and Priestly function, nor the spiritual pressed upon the temporal as in their own right. Now that right which Solomon did show at that time to belong to Princes temporal over the Clergy, is acknowledged and retained by Kings in the new law and in the christian common wealth. From hence came those privileges, which divers Princes, excelling in devotion and piety; granted to ecclesiastic persons 
l Extant in Cod. et Decret atque in lust eccles. . For to what end were privileges given to them, if by a common right they were not subject to kings? seeing that, they who are defended and exempted by the common aid, and by mere law, have no need of any privilege, or extraordinary help 
m I. incous. 16 D●de minor. l. 1 de constit. princi. .  
And with these agree, even those things, which Bellarmine himself doth most rightly 〈◊〉 against the Canonists. That the exemption of the Clergy in civil causes, as well touching their persons as touching their goods; was brought in by the law of man, and not of God, and he confirmeth it both by the authority of the Apostle whose that same rule so much celebrated, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, as well includeth the Clerikes as the Laikes, by Chrysostom's testimony) and also by the testimony of the ancient Fathers: and lastly, in that as he saith, No word of God can be brought forth whereby this exemption can be confirmed. And I add this as a most pregnant argument of this truth, that in the most flourishing estate of the Church, and under those Princes who acknowledged the Pope the Pastor of the universal Church, and the Vicar of Christ, it was enacted and observed by the Imperial laws, that the Clergy should answer before secular judges touching civil crimes, and be condemned by them, if they were found guilty of the crime laid against them 
p 〈…〉. 3 §. Sitamen. ●●at. 6. . And indeed, lest we mistake, we must understand, that not all these privileges of persons and businesses, which at this day the Clergy enjoyeth, were granted by the same Princes, nor at the same time. For first Constantinus Magnus endowed them with this singular privilege only, that they should not be obnoxious to nominations and susceptions, that is that being nominated or elected they should not be constrained to bear office, or to undertake any wardship, or to take any office which concerned the collection or receipt of Victual or Tribute: whereas before they were called to all these things without exception as well as any other Citizens. In the eight year after, by the same Prince his favour they obtained immunity and excuse from all Civil functions, as appeareth by the Constitutions of the same Emperor 
q 〈◊〉 & 2. Cod. Theod. de Epist. & Cler●●. li. 16. ; wherein he gives this reason of his privilege: Lest the Clergy by the sacrilegious malice of certain men might be called away from divine service. And surely it is a thing worth the marking, against the unthankful rashness of certain Clerikes, who can endure to ascribe the beginning of their immunities to the courtesy and gift of secular Princes, because the same godly Princes doth term those exemptions Privileges; for thus he: By the faction of heretical persons we find, that the Clerikes of the Catholic Church, are so vexed, that they are oppressed with certain Nominations or Susceptions, which the common custom requireth against the privileges granted to them. Afterwards Constantius and Constance about the year thirty six from the granting of the first privilege, Arbitio and Lollianus being Consuls, granted an other privilege to the Bishops, that they should not be accused of any Crimes before seculr judges 
t I mansu●tudinis 12. cod. tit.  But other persons of the Ecclesiastical order, inferior to Bishops, that is, Clerks and Monks, continued unto justinianus his time under the jurisdiction of civil Magistrates; and for the same cause Leo and Anthemius Emperors, (about 60 years before justinianus his Empire) ordained by way of favour, That Priests and Clerks, of the orthodoxal Faith, of what degree soever, or Monks in civil causes should not be drawn by the sentence of any judge greater or less, out of the Province or place or Country, which they inhabit; but that they may answer the Actions of all men that have cause of suit against them before their ordinary judges, that is, the Governors of the Provinces. Behold how these being godly and catholic Princes, affirm that the ordinary judges of the Clerks and Monks are the Precedents of the Provinces, whom notwithstanding none of the Fathers or Bishops of that age challenged that they were in the wrong, or that they did not speak truly, holily, and orthodoxally. Whereby it is plain, that they conceived too perversely of justinianus, who affirmed that he usurped any jurisdiction over the Laikes, whereas they are to give him very great thanks, that he was the first of the Emperors, who exempted the Clergy, (being before that time altogether subject to civil Magistrates) from secular judgement in civil Causes. Which things being thus, it is plain enough, that secular Kings and Princes, are endued with sovereign power temporal, and that the Clergy is subject unto them in Civil affairs. Otherwise truly, neither could Kings have granted those privileges: nor holy and wise men, would have provided so ill for themselves and the whole Church, that being of themselves absolute and free, and lose from the bands of temporal power, would suffer themselves to be brought into Obligation for these manner of Courtesies and Privileges, for they plainly acknowledged that they were in their power and jurisdiction, by whom they could be endowed with such a manner of liberty, for that cannot be loosed and exempted, which was not bound or concluded before. Besides, the Princes through out the world, were at that time of so great piety and devotion, that if they had either found out by themselves, or understood by the Bishops or Princes of the Priests, that by the law of God, the Clerikes were free from secular jurisdiction, they would forthwith have provided and enacted laws and Edicts for the same, nor have challenged any title or interest either to their persons or goods. For if out of an only zeal of devotion they gave away so frankly and so profusely, even those things which they conceived to be their own, how much more would they have abstained and held their hands from those things which by no title or right were due unto them.  
Therefore the exemptions and privileges, which christian Princes have granted to ecclesiastic persons, for honour and reverence unto them, do sufficiently declare, yea convince, that those Princes are greater than all Priests in temporal power, nor that the chief Bishop and Prince of Priests, and even the Vicar of Christ is exempted for other reason, and reputed as a privileged person, but that he is a temporal Prince also, and sustains a two fold person, the one of Peter's succession in the government of the Church, the other of asecular Prince in a temporal jurisdiction, which he hath received by the liberality of other Princes.   

CHAP. XVI.  
BY the same reason may the difference be overthrown manifestly, which he putteth between heathen Princes and Christian Princes, as far as concerns temporal Domination over ecclesiastic persons: which place I cannot now pass by in silence without blame. For he saith that the 
a Lib. 2 the Roman. Pontif. cap. 29.  Bishop was subject (Civiliter & de facto) to Heathen Princes: Because Christian law deprives no man of his right and inheritance. Therefore as before the law of Christ men were subject to Emperors and Kings, so also they were after. But when Princes became Christians, and of their accord received the laws of the Gospel, presently they subjecteth themselves to the Precedent of the ecclesiastic Hierarchy, as sheep to the Pastor and members to the head, and therefore afterwards ought to be judged by him, and not to judge him.  
It is an exceeding great fault in disputing, to take those things which are enunciated of any one subject, for a certain cause: or are removed from one subject for a certain cause, and to attribute or detract them to, or from another thing divers and unlike, 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 severed and parted by some distinction. Which fault who cannot plainly deprehend, in this former reasoning of Bellarmine? in which that is indefinitely and generally concluded of both the kinds of power and judgement, which ought truly and rightly to have been enunciated of one of them alone.  
For that Princes converted to Christ, submit themselves as sheep to the Pastor, and members to the head, that cannot without wilful cavil be understood but of Spiritual subjection: since they were not made his children or sheep in other respect, then for that they were by the same spirit regenerate in jesus Christ, and governed by the faith of the Church. Therefore in all matters, which belong to spiritual jurisdiction, it is true that they ought to be judged by him, and not he by them. But this submission what is it to Civil judgement and temporal jurisdiction? Was it fit to 〈◊〉 and confound together matters of so diverse and differe it kinds? And that which might truly be affirmed of one of them alone, to pronounce generally and indefinitely of them both? If he had said, and therefore aught to be judged of 〈◊〉 spiritual matters, but not to judge him afterwards, surely he had concluded his argument very well. But that same simple and absolutely, ab illo eos judicari posse, is a 〈◊〉 collection. For there is a twofould kind of judgement, whereof by the one only Princes may be judged by the Pope: but by the other, the Pope himself might be judged by them, but that he had obtained a temporal government which is subject to none other.  
I pray you tell me, when Constantinus Magnus came to the Church, did the Roman Empire, which before his Baptism was his, did it by and by pass into the hands and power of Silvester the Pope? and the Emperor, who was a man that affected glory so much, did he acknowledge the temporal power of that Pope over him? Did either Clodovaeus transfer the kingdom of France, or Donaldus of Scotland, or others their kingdoms into the temporal power and jurisdiction of the Pope, as soon as they had embraced the faith? That same caveat of Paulus, the Civilian is good: 
b 1. Si unus 27. § ant omnia. D. depist.  Above all things we must take heed, lest 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 find amongst them no one step, whereby it may be gathered, that those christian Princes, when they gave their names to the Church, did submit their Sceptres to the Pope and did specially and by name a bandon their sovereign temporal Magistracy? But it must appear that Princes wittingly and knowingly did descend and give themselves into the dition and authority temporal of the Pope; or we must confess, that as much as concerned regal dignity, they remained after Baptism in the same power and condition, wherein they were before they received holy imitation of Christianity, for as he witnesseth himself, the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and peculiar fee. But before they gave their name to Christ, of right and in fact, as he saith, they exercised civil authority over the Pope, and might lawfully judge him in temporal Cases: therefore they might likewise do it lawfully after Baptism. Which if it be so, it cannot be by any means, that they should be judged by him in temporal matters, seeing it is impossible, that any man should be superior and inferior in the same kind of authority, and in respect of one and the same thing. It is true that those christian Princes, for the reverence they bore not only to the Pope, but also to all other Bishops, yea and Priests also, did very seldom put that judgement in practice: But this argues a want of will only, and not of power also. Wherefore as a Consul or Precedent when he yields himself to adoption, transfers none of those rights, which belong to him by his office, into the family and power of his adoptive father, neither can transfer them, but reserves them all entirely to himself; so Princes in the beginning having delivered themselves into the spiritual adoption of the ecclesiastic Hierarchy, could by that act lose none of those things, which belonged to the right of a kingdom, and their public civil estate: for that the nature of these powers is divided, so as although being yoked and coupled together they did very htlv and handsomely frame together in the same christian Commonwealth: yet neither of them as it is such, is subject or master to the other, and neither doth necessarily follow and accompany 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 beside proves thy common opinion the indirect a potestate temporals summ● Pontificis, by no testimony either of Scriptures or of ancient Fathers: but only by certain reasons fetched a simili (a very poor and weak foundation to build a demonstration upon I think I shall not do amiss, by a similitude of much more fitness to confirm also our opinion of this matter.  
The son of the family, although he go to wars, and bear public office and charge, is by the law of God and man subject to his Father, in whose sacred household power he is yet abiding 
d Eph. 6. 〈◊〉. 3. . And again the father, who hath this power over his son, is subject to his son as a magistrate, but 〈◊〉 another kind of power. For the one, as he is a Parent challengeth authority over his son, whereby he may correct, chastise, and punish him offending and committing any thing against the laws of the family, or practising any thing against himself, or otherwise doing that which is unworthy and unfitting a good son, not by the right of a Magistrate, but, by the authority of his fatherly power; and not with every kind of punishment, but only with certain, which are allowed by the law. Therefore, if his son deserve ill, he may disherit him, cast him out of the house, deprive him of the right of the family and kindred, and chastise him with other domestical remedies 
e 〈…〉. . But he can not disannul his Magistracy, nor take from him his goods in the camp, nor condemn him by a public judgement; neither inflict any other mulct or pain due for his fault by the law, either directly, or indirectly, because this course exceedeth the measure and jurisdiction of a fatherly power: But the other, although a son, and obliged by the father's bond, yet as he is a Magistrate in public authority, ruleth over his father, and in public affairs, and even in private (so be it they be not domestical) may command him as well as other Citizens 
f 〈…〉. . If there be a son of a family, saith Ulpian, and bear an office, he may constrain his father in whose power he is, suspectum dicentem haereditatem adire & restituers. From hence, if the son of the family be Consul, or Precedent, he may either be emancipated or given into adoption before himself 
g Lib 3. De adopt. . For which cause the father is no less bound than if he were a stranger, not only to obey his son, being in office, but also to rise to him, and to honour him with all the respect and honour, which belongeth to the Magistrate 
h 〈◊〉. lib. 24. val Matth. 2. ca 2. 〈…〉 apoth. Rome Cell. lib 2. ca 2. .  
In the very same manner the Pope, who is the spiritual father of all Christians, by his fatherly ecclesiastic power as the Vicar of Christ doth command Kings and Princes, as well as the rest of the faithful: and in that respect, if Kings commit any thing against God or the Church, he may sharply chastise them with spiritual punishments, cast them out of the house and family of God, and disinherit them of the kingdom of heaven (most fearful and terrible punishments for christian hearts to think on) because all these things are proper to his fatherly power spiritual. But neither can he take from them, temporal principality and domination, nor inflict civil punishments upon them, because he hath obtained no civil and temporal jurisdiction over them, by which such manner of chastisement ought to be exercised: as also for that, the fatherly power spiritual, wherewith the Pope is furnished is very far divided from the civil and temporal in ends, offices, and even in persons also. For God as he hath committed spiritual power to the Pope and the other Priests, so also hath he given the civil by an everlasting 〈◊〉tion to the King and the Magistrates, which be under him. There is no power but of God. 
Rom. 13.   
To this place belongs that ancient gloss, which the Cardinal of Cusa 
k lib 3. the concord. cathol. ca 3.  writes that it was assured to the Canon. Hadrianus Papa 63. in which Canon it is delivered, that the Pope with the whole Synod, granted to Charles the great, the honour of the Patriciate. For the gloss said that a Patrician was a father to the Pope in temporalities, as the Pope was his father in spiritualities. And the same Cardinal in the same book speaking of the electers of the 
l Cap. 4.  German Emperors: from whence the electors, saith he, who in the time of Henry the second were appointed by the common consent of all the Almans, and others who were subject to the Empire, have a radical power from that common consent of all men, who might by the law of nature constitute an Emperor over them: not from the Bishop of Rome, who hath no authority to give a King or Emperor to any Province in the world, without the consent of the same. The same Cardinal, being himself, both a great Diume and Philosopher, addeth many other things in that place, by which he confirms our distinction and declares, that Emperors and Kings are both over and under the Popes. And thus much touching the first reason of Bellarmine, and the arguments brought by him to prove the same.   

CHAP. XVII.  
THe second reason follows, which is concluded by two fold arguments. The second reason, saith he, the ecclesiastic Commonweal ought to be perfect, and in itself sufficient in order to her end. For such are all Commonweals, rightly founded: therefore ought she to have all power necessary to attain her end. But the power to use and to dispose of temporal matters, is necessary to this Spiritual end: because otherwise wicked Princes might with impunity nourish Heretics, and overturn religion: therefore she hath this power also. Again, every Commonwealth, because it ought to be perfect and sufficient in itself, may command another Commonwealth, which is not subject to it, and constrain it to change the Government, yea even to depose her Prince, and to appoint another, when it cannot otherwise defend itself, from her injuries: therefore much more may the Spiritual Commonweal command the Temporal Commonweal, being subject to her, and force it to change the Government, and to depose the Princes and appoint others, seeing she cannot otherwise maintain her Spiritual good.  
I answer, that here are so many faults in this place, as it seemeth that the Author did either idly and carelessly transcribe all this out of some other, or if it be all his own, 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 prove, that the Civil power is subject to the ecclesiastic, he affirmed that these powers were parts only of one Commonwealth, and that they did constitute only one Commonwealth. The first reason, saith he, is thus: The Civil power is subject to the Spiritual power, because each of them is a part of the same Christian Commonwealth. And again, secondly Kings Bishops, and Clerikes and Laikes do not make two commonwealths but one. But in this place he quite changes these two Powers into two commonwealths, which therefore ought to be so severed and disjoined, as that Kings and Laikes do make a Politic and Temporal Commonwealth: Bishops and Clerikes a Spiritual or ecclesiastic: than which nothing could be spoken more absurdly or unfitly for the present purpose. For either he speaketh in this place of an ecclesiastic power, which is wholly severed from the Civil power, as it was once in the time of the Apostles, and now is in those places, where Christians lay amongst Heathen and Infidesl: in which case it is evident that the Power or Commonwealth ecclesiastic, as he calls it, or the Prince and Hierarch thereof hath no authority at all, not so much as Spiritual over the Civil Prince: because he is not a child of the Church. 
a 1. ad Corin. 5.  Or he speaks of the power ecclesiastic joined with the Civil, as in a Christian Commonwealth, and then he doth wrong to make her two commonwealths, one ecclesiastic and the other Politic, when as they be only two powers of one Christian Commonwealth, and parts and members of one Church and Mystical body of Christ, as himself delivered before.  
Further it is falls which he assumes. That the power to use & to dispose of temporal matters, is necessary to a spiritual end, etc. For the Prince of the Apostles himself openly teacheth, that he had no such manner of authority over the temporalities of Christians except those, which themselves of their own accord, did confer and offer to the Church, when he saith, 
b 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? Whilst it remained, did it not belong to thee, and being sold 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? etc. and when as Ananias might presently have replied: yes, you had power to dispose of my goods, and therefore fearing lest you would take from me more than was cause, I concealed part of the price. But because the Church had not this power, therefore without cause did he lie to the holy Ghost. And how, if out of this foundation of Bellarmine it should follow, that the primitive Church had not all necessary power to attain unto her end? for, for the space of 300 years and more, wherein she lived under heathen Princes, after the passion of Christ, she never had this power to dispose of Christians temporalties: in which time notwithstanding, it is most certain, that an infinite multitude of men and almost the greatest part of the world, had given their names to Christ, and that a more severe and strict discipline reigned in the Church, then at any time beside, that it is impious to say, that the Church was not then furnished with all necessary means of Right and of Fact to attain her end, for the works of God are perfect. And surely he should do Christ no small injury, who thinks that the Church is by him left and delivered to the Apostles, destitute of necessary means for her preservation. Whatsoever was necessary for the Church to attain 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 adversarij vestri 
c Luk 21. . Therefore, whosoever conceives that Christ recommended his Church to Peter, and willed him thrice to feed his Lambs and Sheep, and supposeth that for the feeding of those sheep, and to the accomplishing of the end of his commandment, he did not grant them all things necessary both in Right and in Fact, he seems to me no better than an Atheist, and to doubt of the providence, power and goodness of God. Let us imagine that he did not give all power necessary 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 needful, or had no ability in him to give it, or (which is a point of extreme malice,) he meant to deceive his servants and friends, by enjoining that duty unto them, which he knew very well that they were never able to perform. By these things, it is clear, that the temporal authority and power to depose Princes, is no way necessary for the Church to attain her end: although in human consideration, it may seem sometimes to be profitable. For God, who hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise, and hath chosen the weak things of the world, to confound the strong 
e 1. Cor. 1. , knowing that his Church only stood in need of spiritual arms, did so from the beginning furnish her with them, that she overcame all human power and might, so as it might be said truly: a Domino factum est illud & est mirabile in oculis nostris 
f Psal. 117. . S. Bernard writeth excellently, (as he doth always,) to Eugenius the Pope 
g Lib. 4. c. 3. : This is Peter, who was not at any time known to walk clad in silks, or adorned with precious stones, not covered with gold, nor carried on a white steed, nor waited on with a guard of soldiers, nor compassed with troops of servants attending on him: and yet he thought that without these, that wholesome Commandment might be discharged Siamas me, pasce oves meas: herein thou hast succeeded not to Peter but to Constantine. Therefore although the temporal power whereof we speak, may seem to men to be necessary for the Church, yet to God it seemed neither necessary, nor profitable, peradventure for that reason, which the success of matters and experience itself hath taught the posterity, lest the Apostles and their successors trusting on human authority, should more negligently intend spiritual matters, and should chiefly place their hope in arms and in a temporal authority and might, which they ought to settle in the power of the word of God and in his singular help. And indeed if a man would take a view in Story of the state of the Church from the passion of Christ to this day, he shall see, altogether that she grew very soon, and flourished very long, under Bishops that were content with their own authority, that is, with spiritual jurisdiction: who being the Disciples of the humility of Christ, judged, that the only strength to defend the Church, did consist in the power of preaching the Gospel, and the diligent observation of ecclesiastic Discipline, without any mention of temporal power. And again ●●om the time that certain Popes went about to annex and adjoin a sovereign temporal government to that spiritual sovereignty which they had, that the Church decased every day, both in the number of believers, and behaviour and virtue of governors; and that same severity of the ancient discipline being either remitted, or to speak more truly, being omitted, that many Ministers of the Church discharged their places more slothfully and carelessly then before.  
I omit that if these men's reasons were good it would follow by contraries: that the temporal common wealth, as they speak, hath power to dispose of spiritual matters, and to depose the sovereign Prince of the ecclesiastic common wealth: because, It ought to be perfect and sufficient in itself, in order to her end, and to have all power necessary to attain to her end: But the power to dispose of spiritual matters, and to depose the Prince ecclesiastic is necessary to the temporal end, because otherwise wicked Ecclesiastical Princes, may trouble the state and quiet of a temporal common wealth, and hinder the end of the civil government, as indeed diverse Popes have been causes of much unquietness. Therefore the temporal Commonwealth hath this power. The consecution is utterly false and absurd, (for a temporal Prince, as he is such a one hath no spiritual power) and therefore the other is false too, to which this by analogy is a consequent.  
But as we use to speak, dare absurdum non est solvere argumentum: Therefore I do answer otherwise to the former part of this second reason. That here be not two common weals as he supposeth, but one only, wherein there be two powers, or two Magistrates: the ecclesiastic and the Politic, whereof each hath those things, which he doth of necessity require to attain his end: the one his spiritual, the other his temporal jurisdiction: and that neither this jurisdiction is necessary to that power, nor that for this. Otherwise we must confess, that each power is destitute of her necessary means, than when they were severed, as sometimes they were: which I have already showed to be very false, as well out of the end of the temporal or civil government, at it is such 
h Su. c. 14. , as by the state of the Church, being established under heathen and infidel Princes 
i Sum hoc Capite. . According to this manner, in one and the same civil policy I mean, in one City or kingdom, many magistrates are found invested with diverse offices, power and authority, who govern the common weal committed to them in parts, every one of whom receiveth from the King or common wealth necessary power to attain the end of their charge, so as none of them may or dare, invade and arrogate to themselves, the jurisdiction and rule of an other. If the Consuls want any part of the Tribunes power, or the Tribunes any of the Consular jurisdiction, it can not be said therefore, that both have need of an others power to compass 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 kingdom and under 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 special charge of the law and justice, the other the managing of arms, and the government of all military discipline committed to him,) and each of them according to the quality and condition of his office is absolute, and receiveth from the King all authority necessary for the execution of his charge, and the compassing of his end. Neither, if peradventure one of them either of negligence or injury do hinder the course of the other, may he that is so hindered by his proper authority disannul his office, or usurp his jurisdiction, or to be short enforce him to amend his fault, but by lawful means granted him by commission from the King: but it is requisite that each complain to the King of others abuse, of whom they have received their authority so distinguished in offices and function, that he may right him that is wronged and determine by his own power and judgement the division of the whole cause. Now so long as these officers do agree in the kingdom, the one maintains an others authority, and useth of his own to supply that which is wanting in the other.  
But if a Countryman, to avoid judgement of law do depart into the Camp to the Army, the aid of the martial at arms being required, he is wont to be sent back to the place, from whence he fled: and of the contrary, if one that forsakes his Colours shall slip into the City, the City Magistrate being requested by the Magistrate at arms, will by and by see him conveyed to the Camp to be punished for his misdemeanour. But where they do disagree, they give those wounds to the Commonwealth, which the Prince only can help and cure: because it is not lawful for them to use another man's authority, and is fitting for the one only to meddle in matter of arms, and for the other with matter of justice. In the same manner two sovereign Magistrates of the Christian Commonwealth, the King and the Pope, do receive from the common King and Lord of all, the great God of Heaven and Earth; a divers power, each perfect in his kind, and govern the people by different jurisdictions and offices. And these surely, so long as they agree together in concord of minds, do naturally assist one another, to the maintenance and conservation of each power and authority, so as both the ecclesiastic power, doth with the Heavenly and Spiritual sword, strike such as be seditious and rebellious subjects to their secular Prince, and in requital the power Temporal and Politic doth with an armed hand, pursue Schismatics, and others falling from the faith, or otherwise carrying themselves stubbornly toward their holy Mother the Church, and doth sharply chastise them with temporal punishments and civil corrections: and Mulctes. But when they are rend into contrary factions, and oppose themselves one against the other, the whole Christian Commonwealth either wholly falls to ground, or at least is most grievously wounded: because there is none but God alone, who can lawfully divide that cause, and redress the wrong offered of either side.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
BEing desirous to pass on to other matters, I was a little staid, by a doubt which did arise touching the sense of the late argument of the second reason, which was conceived by the author in these words. 
a Cap. proximo sum.  Also every Commonweal, because she ought to be perfect and sufficient in herself, may command another Commonwealth, not subject to her, and enforce her to change her government, yea also to depose her Prince, and to ordain another, being she cannot otherwise defend herself from her injuries. For to confess the truth, when I first read these words in him, I paused awhile, that I might thoroughly understand the meaning of these words, and what the moment and weight of this argument might be. For he seemed not plainly and expressly to approve it, because he did lay open to us certain means of forcing a Neighbour Commonwealth, and deposing the Prince thereof. And when I had a long time scanned and examined the same, I resolved that either it was a riddle, or that his words do admit this sense and interpretation. Every Commonweal may denounce and wage a just war against another Commonwealth, which bears both hatred and arms against her, when as she cannot otherwise deliver herself from her injury, and if she be the stronger may by force and arms force her to conditions of peace: and if she suppose that by that Caution she hath not yet provided sufficiently for her security (because peradventure she hath to do with a people that is by nature false and treacherous) may reduce the whole Country into her power and jurisdiction, and give her laws and orders, remove her Prince, take away her authority, and at her pleasure alter the whole administration of the Commonwealth 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 Spiritual Commonwealth, command the Temporal Commonwealth, being subject unto her, and force her to change her administration, and to depose Princes, and ordain others, etc. Because in this case there be not two commonwealths, but only one Christian, resting on two powers, whereof neither is subject to other, as we have above sufficiently demonstrated: as also, for that if we grant, that they are two commonwealths distinct, the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, and the Temporal, he must of force confess, 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 only Eccleisastics, that of only Laikes. For although the Laikes and Clerikes together, do constitute one Church and one christian Commonweal, yet they do not make together one ecclesiastic and spiritual Commonwealth, as it is distinguished from the temporal: nor one temporal and secular Commonwealth, but according to the division and separation above named, the Laikes make the temporal, and the Eccleisastics the spiritual: in the case wherein the temporal is distinguished from the spiritual after this manner. But now seeing the ecclesiastic commonwealth, contains only Clerikes, whose weapons ought to be none other, but Prayers and Tears, how can it be, that she being weak and unarmed can compel (but by Miracle) a temporal Commonweal armed, to change the manner of her administration?  
Therefore there is nothing more fond than this comparison and consecution of Bellarmine, since in reasoning he proceeds: from commonwealths well provided for exercise and furniture of arms, to commonwealths, the one whereof is utterly disfurnished of arms. For as oft as one State either repelleth the injuries, which another would offer, or revengeth them, being offered, she fighteth with those arms, which are allowed her, and which by law of arms she may use: that is to say, Corporal and Visible, by force whereof she overturns the bodies of her enemies, invades their holds, battereth towns, and overthrows the whole state of the enemy Commonwealth. But the spiritual Commonweal, which he calls, is quite destitute of this kind of arms, and because it is composed of Clerikes only, it is lawful for her, to fight with spiritual arms only, which are, Prayers and Tears, for such are the defences of Priests: in no other manner neither aught they, neither can they resist 
b Can. non pila. can. conventor. 23. q 8.  For all of them are commanded in the person of Peter to put up the Material sword. How then can the spiritual Commonwealth constrain the temporal Commonwealth, which contemns the spiritual thunderbolts, that she should change the manner and form of her Administration or depose her Prince, and ordain another? Now if any peradventure do propound, that the ecclesiastic Commonwealth should be assisted in the execution of so great a matter, by the human 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 ecclesiastic Commonwealth, doth not constrain the temporal commonweal, but is only the Cause, wherefore an other State temporal, by whose help that spiritual one is defended and protected, doth revenge the wrong done unto the Church. In no other manner than if the whole Commonwealth should revenge an injury or a slaughter received in the person of one Citizen. Even as it is recorded, that the rest of the Tribes of Israel, did wage a bitter and a grievous war against the Beniamites, for ravishing the wife of one Levite 
jud. cap. pen. & ●. ●. . So the Grecians in times past revenged Menclaus his injury, with the ruin of Troy. And the Romans punished with a sharp war, Teuca, Queen of the 〈◊〉, for the murder executed on L. Coruncanus; forced the Queen to depart out of Illiricum, and to pay a great yearly tribute 
d 〈◊〉. 2. . Will any man here say, that the ●e●ia●ites, Trojans, Illyrians, were vanquished and repressed by the Levite, Menclaus or Coruncanus, now dead, and not rather by them who for their sakes took arms and punished the enemies? In like manner will any say, it is the ecclesiastic Commonwealth, which bridles and reduceth into order, the temporal, playing upon them with much injurious and insolent demeanour: and not rather an other temporal state, which enters in arms for the sake of the ecclesiastic republic; and without whose help, the Church herself and all her Orders would lie trodden and trampled under foot? What if there be no temporal state, which will or dare contest with this state which is enemy to the ecclesiastic commonwealth? by what means then will she revenge herself? To use few words: although we grant them their comparison and conclusion, there can nothing be made of it, but that the Pope hath such a power to dispose of temporal matters of Christians, and to depose Princes, as either the King of France is known to have over the English, Spaniards, or other neighbour people, who do him wrong, or any of these upon the State and Kings of France, if they have offended them, which power in what manner, and of what proportion it is, can only be determined and decided by the sword.   

CHAP. XIX.  
THese although they may suffice for the refuting of the second reason, yet lest in these writings of this most learned man, I should pass over any thing, which because it is either untouched, or negligently handled, might beget any error, or cast any scruple into the Reader, it is a matter worth the pains to examine and sift, what that might be which for the strengthening of his reason he brings out of S. Bernard, in the books de Consid. ad Eugen 
a Lib. 4. c. 3 . Bernard indeed adviseth that the material sword is to be exercised by the soldiers hand at the beck of the Priest and commandment of the Emperor, which we surely confess, for wars both are undertaken more justly, and discharged more happily, when the Ecclesiastical holiness doth agree & conspire with kingly authority. But we must note, he attributeth only to the Priest a Beck, that is, the consent and desire to wage war; but to the Emperor the commandment and authority. Whereby it is evident, that he speaketh in no other respect, that the Material sword belongeth to the Church, then for that in a Christian estate, although the authority and command for war be in the power of Emperors, Kings and Princes, yet wars are with more justice waged, where the consent of the ecclesiastic power comes in, which being guided by the spirit of God, can more sharply and truly judge between right and wrong, godly, or ungodly. But what if the Emperor will not draw his sword at the beck of the Priest? nay what if he shall draw it against the Priest's beck and assent? doth S. Bernard in this case give to the Priest any temporal power over the Emperor? (for this is it which we seek 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 Material sword, (by which sword the sovereign power temporal is signified) may not be exercised by the Church: but only by the hand of the soldier, and commandment of the Emperor. Which same point Gratianus delivers more plainly, being almost S. Bernard's equal. 
b Imperium D. de 〈◊〉 Pan●. ca 13. ad Rom.  When Peter, saith he, who was first of all the Apostles chosen by the Lord, did use the material word, that he might defend his Master from the injury of the jews, he heard, Turn thy 
c 23 q ●. in 〈◊〉.  sword into the seabbard, for every one, who takes the sword, shall perish by the sword, as if it had been told him openly: Hitherto it was lawful for the and thy Predecessors to prosecute the enemies of God with the temporal sword: hereafter for an example of Patience turn thy sword, that is hitherto granted to thee, into the scabbard: and yet exercise the spiritual sword which is the word of God, in the killing of thy former life, for every one besides him or his authority, who useth lawful power, who as the Apostle saith, 
d 〈◊〉. 13.  beareth not the sword without cause, to whom also every soul ought to be subject: I say every one, who without such a warrant receiveth the sword, shall perish by the sword.  
If these of Bernard and Gratian be true, it can by no means be, that the Pope should with any right exercise temporal power upon the Emperor, or other secular Princes: for it cannot be exercised but by the sword, and the sword cannot be by the soldier drawn, but by their commandment: and so this temporal power, would prove utterly vain and unprofitable in the person of the Pope, when as the execution thereof should be denied him. Unless some Emperor perchance should be besotted with so fatal a fatuity, that he would command the soldiers to bear arms against himself; or should be endued with so great sanctity and justice, that he do by his edict signify that they should not spare himself if he should offend. Hitherto belongs that, which S. Ambrose writeth, 
e ●●b 10 comment in evan. Luca  The law saith he, forbiddeth not to strike, and therefore peradventure Christ said to Peter, offering two sword. It is enough, as though it were lawful until the Gospel, that there might be in the Law an instruction of equity, in the gospel perfection of goodness.  
Besides we must understand, that that place of the Gospel, touching two swords, which they object unto us, is not 
● Lut. 22.  necessarily to be understood of the Temporal and Spiritual swords, yea that it is far more agreeable to the speech of our Saviour in that place, that it should be understood of the Spiritual 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 Gospel, of a few other manner of conditions after his death came they should receive this commandment, Euntes in Mundum universum predicate evangelium universae 
● Mare. 16.  Creaturae: then before they had been sent by him, when as yet he lived with them in the earth: as if he had said, hitherto I have so sent you as you have needed neither bag, nor girdle, nor shoes, but hereafter I will send you to preach the Gospel: and you will have need of a bag and a scrip, to wit of Care and Patience: and also of the two swords, the Spiritual and that of the Passion, whereof it is said. 
h Lut. 2.  A sword shall pierce thy soul, for there is a Spiritual sword, (saith Ambrose in that place) that thou shouldest sell thy patrimony, purchase the word whereby the naked inward reins of the soul are clothed and furnished. There is also a sword of the Passion, that thou put of thy body, that with the cast clothes of thy flesh sacrificed, thou mayest buy a crown of Martyrdom, which thou mayest gather out of the blessings of the Lord, who preached that it was the sum of all Crowns, if a man suffer persecution for righteousness. Lastly, that you may know of what passion he spoke, lest he should trouble the minds of his Disciples, he brought forth the example touching himself, saving: Because as yet, that which is written aught to be fulfilled in me: that he was reputed with the injust. 
i Isaia 53.  Thus he, To which I will at last adjoin, that Bellarmine himself, in the books, de summo Pontifice, 
k Lib. 5. cap. 3.  proveth that it is not the meaning of that place of the Gospel, that it should be understood of the Spiritual and Temporal sword. I answered, saith he, that no mention is made in that place of the Gospel, of the Spiritual and Temporal sword of the Pope, but only that by those words the Lord would admonish his Disciples that in the time of his passion they should be in those straights, and in that fear, wherein they are wont to be, who are glad to sell their c●ate to buy them a sword withal. Where upon he affirmeth, that S. Bernard, and Pope Boniface the viii. did mystically only interpret this place of the two swords.  
Which seeing it is so, and that it is certain both by the interpretation of the Fathers, and also by the confession of Bellarmine himself, that the words of our Saviour, are not truly, properly, and strictly to be taken of those swords, (about which all our swords are drawn, and we together by the ears) surely than that speech of Bernard is very wrongfully alleged, to prove that the Pope in any case hath Temporal power over Christian Princes, or that the Temporal sword is under the Spiritual sword; the which neither S. Bernard saith there, neither ●●uld so say without wresting and perverting the place. Therefore although we grant never so much, that the place is to be understood mystically of the Spiritual and Temporal sword, yet that exposition of Bernard's will only work thus much, that we may understand, that Christian Kings and Princes, aught to wage war for the Church, by the Counsel of the Church or of the Pope. Which no sober man will ever deny. And so Christ (if in this manner we understand his words mystically) two swords being showed said, Satis est. not to signify that one sword should be subject 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 Emperors, have God only for their superior in temporalities) but to admonish us, that there should be at the last in the Christian Commonwealth a meeting and concourse of both the swords, Spiritual and Temporal, when Princes should be converted to the faith, and that by them two, the Church should be every way protected and defended from injury.  
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 observed heretofore. What is the reason that he, writing to Eugenius the Pope of the temporal sword, first saith, tuo forsitan nutu, etsi non tua manu cuaginandus. Then a few lines after, doth add, that the same sword is to be used nutu sacerdotis: and adds not forsitan? Doth that same, forsitan, either abound in the former sentence, or fail in the latter: The truth is, that the godly and wise man did it of purpose: that he might with some fineness distinguish the person of the Pope, from the pontifical or sacerdotal authority and office, and teach, that it importeth very much, whether the Pope or Eugenius, although both Pope and Eugenius were the same, do bid or forbid any thing. I mean whether the Pope, as a man obnoxious to the perturbations of the mind, would have the sword drawn, 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, do command or refuse that the sword should be drawn and war waged, serving not his own turn, but the profit of the Church. As if he should say o Eugenius, chief Bishop, the temporal sword is not absolutely and simply to be drawn at thy commandment, but peradventure; even then, when as for the evident commodity of the Church, you shall advise them with wise and sound counsel who have the sword in their power: but not then, when as out of the desire you have, either to practise ancient enmity with any, or to power out any new conceived hatred, or to satisfy any ambitious desire to rule, you shall purpose to set christian Kings, and people by the ears, 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 Bishop's sea. That this was S. Bernard's meaning in those words, the actions of certain Bishops who have been beyond measure transported with anger and pride, have plainly declared. But let us return to our purpose.   

CHAP. XX.  
THe third reason in Bellarmine is: It is not lawful for 〈◊〉 to tolerate a King that is an infidel or an be 〈◊〉 uncendeavour to draw his subjects to heresy or 〈◊〉. But to judge whether a King do draw to heresy or 〈…〉 Pope, to whom the charge of religion is committe●. Ergo, It belongs to the Pope to judge, that a King is to be 〈◊〉 not to be ●epo●ed. And he labours to prove 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 heretic or an 〈◊〉 etc. that this proposition is as false as false may be: Otherwise all antiquity is to be condemned, which did bear with great submission and patience, King's heretical and infidel's, who went about to destroy the Church of God; 〈…〉 propter con●cientiam; that is, not 〈◊〉 that they wanted strength to enforce ●icked 〈…〉 that they judged that they might not by the law o● God. But because we have in our books against the 〈…〉 and also a●oue in this book, we have 
〈…〉  〈…〉 hurtful and mischievous er●●●, there is no cause wh● we should dwell any long 〈…〉 the fairhood thereof. It only remaineth that 〈…〉 sh●w the faults of the arguments, wherewith 〈…〉 to prove his false proposition.  
I 〈◊〉 first argument he f●tches out of Deuteron●mie; where the people is forbidden to choose a King, which is not 〈…〉 brethren, that is, who is not a jew, lest 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 〈◊〉 Again: It is equally dangerous and hurtful to choose one that is not a Christian, & not to depose a non Christian: as it is known. Ergo, Christians are bound not to suffer ever them a King not Christian, if he endeavour to turn the people from the ●au●.  
I answer, that this consequence is not good, and that by such vicious and deceitful manner of arguing many are turned from the truth. Now the fallacy is in this, that he determines and assumes for certain that there is law, wheresoever the same hurt or danger is; which I shall prove presently to be most false. Neither is it like that, which the 〈◊〉 deliver, v●●●adem ratio est, ●us idem esse 〈◊〉. 
d I ill●d 32 D ad lig. Aquil. . Therefore we must observe, that he doth not sa●e, 〈◊〉 demp●●●att esse, eligere non Christianum & non deponere non Christianum: that it is as faulty or unlawful, etc. which if he had said I had denied the antecedent: but he saith 〈…〉 esse that it is as hurtful and dangerous etc. whence he doth falsely gather that Christians are ●ound not to suffer over them a King that is no Christian. For it followeth not, where the same harm and danger is, that the same power to do any thing is granted to the party who is 〈◊〉 or endangered, nor where equal harm and danger is, there also is equal sin or merit; and this may be easily proved by examples. He that re〈◊〉 'ounds, or is spoiled of his goods, suffers the same danger and mischief, whether it be by force from a robber, or a wandering soldier, or that he be oppressed of a Magistrate by an unjust sentence. But the same remedy is not provided against both these, to run upon a robber, and to kill him, in defence of himself and his goods, it is very lawful 
e I. ut vim D. de just. & tur. c. 2. the homicide. L. 2. C. quando louse at vnu●ique. , reserving as they say, the moderation of the defensive resistance, that it be without blame. But it is not likewise lawful to resist a Magistrate, who according to the power of his jurisdiction had passed an unjust sentence against him, by reason of the authority which judgements and matters judged use to have. Mark I pray you, although in both respects, there be the like harm and loss to him that is spoiled, yet the same law is not of force in both places. Again 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 leak: and to enter into that, which you take to be sound, when as indeed she is rotten and full of leaks. I say it is a matter equally dangerous not equally unlawful. In the first case, you tempt God, and procure to yourself your own death: but in the later, it 〈◊〉 have used all possible diligence, you do not offend, it ignorantly you commit yourself to such a ship. So it is a matter of the same danger and hurt, to marry a woman for her wealth or beauty, which you know to be ●● an unquiet, and a 〈◊〉 disposition: and by chance to light upon one, which you do 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 morosity and sharpness of the woman, shall marry her, not only committeth nothing against God, but by his daily troubles and miseries, if he bear them with a strong and patient mind, doth please him as it were by a certain kind of martyrdom. I ●ight produce many examples of this kind, to convince the captiousness of this argument of Bellarmine's. Therefore as it followeth not, if he that knows a woman to be extremely wicked, and so froward, that there is no hope to hu● with her in peace and quietness, ought not to take her to wife, (because by that act, he doth cast himself into 〈◊〉 danger) that he also who casually and unwittingly ha●h light of such a one, aught to forsake or refuse her, notwithstanding the bond of matrimony, although it be a matter of the same danger and hurt, if he keep her. In like manner it followeth not, if Christians be bound not to choose a King who is no Christian, or an heretic, that they are ●ound also, not to endure him being now chosen, because many things hinder a business which is to be done, which do not dissolve the same being done, as we have other where showed at large. And this is sufficient to weaken the force of this argument.   

CHAP. XXI.  
But yet I am constrained to stay here a little longer, that I may further discover and repress another error, which he adjoins as a Complement to his former reason for to confirm that which he said. That Christians are bound not to suffer over them a King, that is no Christian, etc. And because he would have none to doubt of this proposition, because in times past Christians did both tolerat, and honour many Princes, even because they were Princes, without any scruple of conscience, which were partly Heathen, partly Heretics, that I say he might prevent with some solution this so strong an objection and so peremptory against his former position, he presently adjoineth these words. Now if Christians in times past did not depose Nero, and Diocl●tianus and julianus the Apostate, and Valens the Arian, and such like, it was because the Christians wanted temporal strongth. For that otherwise they might justly have done it, appeareth by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 6. where he commands that new judges in Temporal causes, should be set over the Christians, lest the Christians should be enforced to bring their causes, and debate them before a judge, that was a persecutor of Christ. For as new judges might be appointed, so also might new Princes and Kings have been for the same cause if they had had strength sufficient for such an enterprise.  
here be many things, worthy to be reprehended, and which I do much marvel, that a man so learned, and trained in authors both sacred and profane, would ever 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, julian, Ualens and the like, we have sufficiently declared to be most false, by clear and undoubted testimonies in our books 
a Lib 4 cap 5. & lib. 3. cap. 〈…〉.  Deregno, and also above in this book, and will forth with demonstrate, even out of the Principles laid and granted by himself. Secondly there is nothing more●o●d nor more unreasonable, ye●, that I may speak it without offence of so great a man, nothing more 〈…〉 to allege the authority of S. Paul for to give grace and cre●●t to 〈…〉 proposition, in whose writing there is not so 〈…〉 one word, which without 〈…〉 reconstruction and ●au●●l can be applied 〈…〉 they say or by ●g●●e and by interpretation to 〈…〉 of such a position. And indeed, that I 〈◊〉 speak freely▪ they do with two much liberty of interpretation abuse S. Paul● doctrine, who out of that first 〈…〉 to the Corinthians, do collect that it was 〈…〉 Christians to depose Ethinke or Heretic Prin 〈…〉 other in their places. Indeed the Apo 〈…〉 in that place rebuke the Christians, to that they 〈◊〉 one another with suits, & had no judgement among them at all: And also for that they drew one another to the Ben●●es o● Ethnic and infidel judges, to whom every Christian name was hateful. And yet he did this not that he ●ould teach them or signify to them by this 〈◊〉, that Ethnic Magistrates had no jurisdiction o●●● Christian●, or that the Christians might by any de 〈◊〉 bring to pass that ethnics should carry no politic do●● 〈…〉 them: But that he might show, 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 maintain Law 〈◊〉 and questions before Infidel judges, then to pacific and compose their business and controversies begun amongst them, by the judgement and arbitration of the Brethren, which is, of the Christians.  
Therefore the Apostle doth not by this speech disannul the authority of the Heathen, neither signifieth that the Christians may make defection from them: but only misliketh and reproveth the peevishness and stiffness of certain 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 loving and friendly affection justly and wisely dis●eptate and order their causes within their domestic and private walls, not being contented ●ith these, would contentiously appeal to the great scandal of religion, to such judges as were both without saith and justice. Whenc● S. Th●●as upon that place saith, But it seemeth to be otherwise, which ●s said. 1. P●t. 1. ●e ye● subject to every human Creature for God, either to the King as the sou●raigne, or L●●utenant●●●●t as it were from him, for it appertains to the authority of t●● Prince to iu●ge of his subjects. Therefore it i● against the 〈◊〉 of God, to f●r●id that his judgement should be 〈…〉 Infidel. But we must say, that the Apo●●●● 〈…〉 but that the 〈…〉 being placed under infidel Princes, may make their appearance before them, if the● be un●m●ned ●●r this were against the subjection, which i● due to Prince's, but ●e for●●●● th●m that they should not be 〈◊〉 ●●●●ard to run to the judgement ●eates of Infidels. Upon the self same place The●deret & Hier●me do almost write the self same things. The Apostle (saith he) doth not here forbid the faithful, living under unfaithful Princes, to appear before th●m, when they are summoned, for this were against the subjection which is due to Princes, but forbids their ●astie and voluntary running to infidel judges, in those business 〈◊〉 which may be determined by the faithful.  
Therefore the Apostle in that place commands nothing, which may either take away or diminish the jurisdiction and authority of infidel judges over Christians, or any way give prejudice to the same: ●ea he could not justly command any thing against that subjection, since it is of the law of Nature, being confirmed by God his authority, as by S. Ambro●e his witness, the Apostle himself teacheth other where 
e Rom. 1●. . Therefore this constitution of judges, whereof we speak, did by no means exempt Christians, from the subjection and jurisdiction of Ethnic Magistrates, but only took from them the necessity of appealing to them, when as they should have judges constituted by common consent among themselves, by whose arbitrations the questions that rise among them might be composed. Now indeed these judges were no better than umpires without authority, without power to draw any person before them, exercising only a voluntary jurisdiction; and therefore if either a cross and ouerti●● a●t Christian, or any I think had called a Christian before an 〈◊〉 fiddle judge: this authority of these Christian judges had nothing availed him that was thus called, but that he must needs present himself before the heathen be●●h: nay he were in conscience bound to present himself, by reason of the subjection, which we owe our superiors by the law of Nature.  
Moreover if a man do look more wishly on that place of the Apostle, he that of serve that in that place the Apostle takes pains to instruct their Christian minds to Evangelical perfection, which is a matter rather of counsel then of precept, seeing he exhorts them that they would rather take wrong and suffer loss, than so to canvas su●es among themselves. According to that of our Saviour. 
f Matth. ●  If any man shall strike the one the right cheek, hold him thy other, and he that will go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cleake also. And so the Fathers of the Church, Ambrose, Primastus, Theodoret, and all the rest understood that place, for that he saith. Now surely, there is altogether a fault amongst you, that you have judgements amongst you, why do you not rather suffer loss? That, unless it be understood of the preservation of life, or of the most perfect state of life, cannot possibly be admitted, seeing it is a plain ●ase amongst all men, that they do not offend, who being oppressed with injuries and contumelies, desire to be relieved and succoured by the judge. Therefore S. Paul in that place, doth like a good father of many children, who worthily rebukes his children, that fall out among themselves, both for that by dissensions and jarrings they violate brotherly love, as also for that they had not been more willing, to end and determine the controversy which did arise among them rather by the advise of the brethren, then wrap them in the noise and tumults of judicial courts, and decide them by the verdict of strangers.  
Seeing these thing, are thus, good God what a miserable blindness and ignorance is this, or indeed a wilful craft and cunning, to seek to gather out of those words of Paul, that it had been lawful for the Christians to depose all I think Emperors 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 subject to those Ethnic powers non solum propter●●am, lest 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 themselves from their obedience and subjection, which is the ordinance of God, or resist and 
Rome 13.  withstand the same. For this is of necessity to be subject for conscience sake, or propter Deum, for God as S. Peter commandeth. 
h 1. Peter 2.  Moreover the first Christians after the Apostles, did ingenuously confess, that the Emperor, although he were a Heathen and a Persecuter of the faith, yet was ordained of God, and was inferour to God alone. 
i Tertull ad Scapul & in Apologet.  Therefore if Christians for conscience had need to obey those Heathen Magistrates, is it not plain that they contained themselves from all practice of rebellion and defection, not because they could not, but because they lawfully might not? Or if the Emperor were inferior to God only, and the less could not depose the greater, how could the Christian subjects depose him? What doth either the Apostle fight with himself, or doth Peter teach one thing and Paul another? Or even 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 equal 〈◊〉 and more than fuil●●t to execute an exploit against them we have in another place demonstrated very 
〈…〉.  largely.  
Therefore it is ●●●dent by these, that the authority of the Apostle Pa●● doth nothing appertain to the former proposition of Bellar●●●e touching the deposing of Kings: and therefore that he committed a great error, that in a matter so serious, and of so great moment, he hath de●●ded the Reader with a false shadow of the Apostle, authority. If the constitution or creation of judges made by the Christians at the Apostles direction, had taken a●a● the authority, po●er, and monstration of the msidell judges, or in a●● pa●●hadal ●●ga●●d the same, or had exempted Christians from their subie●●●n, there could nothing have been stronger th●● ●●●●unes argument, nothing more tr●●● th●n ●●s op●●●. But because that constitution of Iudge●, d●● no more prejudice ●eath●● Interdiction, the● the chase of Pe●●e Kings at ●●●uetide, or the creation of Princes and judges by the ●anto● youth in the 〈…〉, is prejudicial to the true Kings and Magistrate●, it i● certain that no Argument for his opinion can be dra●●● from thence.  
But because we prosecute the several points in this question, I must ad●●●●tise you, that S. Thomas is in some places 
〈…〉.  of that opinion, that he thinks that the right of the Lordship and Honour of Ethnic Princes may justly be taken away; by the ●●●tence or ordination of the Church, having the authority of God as he saith. S. Thomas his authority is of great force with me, but not so great, as that I esteem all his disputations for Canonical Scripture, or that it should overcome either reason or law. Whose ghost I honour, and admire his doctrine. But yet there is no reason, why any man should be moved with that opinion of his, both because he brings out either no sufficient and strong reason or authority, for his opinion: and also, because in the explication of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinth. 1. he is plain of the contrary opinion: lastly because he hath none of the ancient Fathers consenting with him, and there are many reasons and authorities to the contrary. And the reason which he brings, because that infidels by the desert of their infidelity do deserve to lose their power upon the faithful, who are translated into the sons of God. An ill reason and unworthy so great a man: as though if any man deserve to be deprived of o●ce, benefice, dignity, authority or any other right whatsoever which he possesleth, may therefore presently be spoiled by another, rather than by him of whom he recemed and holdeth the same, or by another, that hath express commandment and authority from him. Who knoweth not, that the Chancellor, Constable and other officers made by the King, do deserve to lose 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 only they do depend, ●u●ereth them to execute their once. In like manner infidel Princes, although by the desert of 〈◊〉 infidelity they deserve to 〈◊〉 their authority: yet because they are constituted by God, and are inferior to him alone, they cannot he dispossessed of their authority, and deposed but by God himself. And indeed the same Thomas, in an exposition of the Epistle of Paul, above recited in this Chapter, showeth plainly enough, that the Church hath not that authority, whereby she may depose ●thinkes, for he saith, it is against the law of God, to forbid that the subjects shall not abide the judgement of infidel Princes. Now it is sure, that the Church can command or forbid nothing against the law of God, further to take from infidel Princes, the right of Lordship and Dignity, is indeed to forbid that no man should stand to his judgement. Therefore the Church hath not that power. And let any man, who will, peruse all Stories, he shall find no where, that ever the Church assumed to herself that authority, to judge Prince's infidel or heathen. Neither did she only forbear for scandal, as Thomas thinketh in that place: but for want of rightful power, because she was not judge of the unfaithful, according to that of the Apostle, 
m 1. Cor 5.  What have I to do to judge them who are without: and also because Princes appointed by God, have God only judge over them, by whom only they may be deposed. Neither is it to the matter, that Paul, when he commands Christian servants to exhibit all honour to their Masters being Infidels, addeth that only, Lest the Name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed: for he said not that, as though for that cause only, servants should obey their Masters, but that especially for that cause they should do it: and therefore he expressed the greatest mischief, which could arise thereof, that he might defer servants from the contempt of their Masters, to wit, the public scandal of the whole Church of God, and of Christian doctrine. Therefore the Apostle meaneth not by these words, that servants may lawfully withdraw themselves from the yoke of service against their Master's will, if they might do it without scandal to the Church, for they should not commit flat 
● a●cilla 60 D de f●rt l 1. 〈…〉 fugit.  theft in their own persons, by the law of Nations: But he would show that they did not only sin, which in other places he plainly teacheth 
p Rom. 13. ad Philip 6. Colos●. 3. , but also draw a public scandal upon the whole Church, which is far more grievous and hurtful than a particular man's fault, and above all things to be avoided.  
Therefore now it remaineth, that according to my promise, I make proof, that the former proposition of Bellarmine touching the authority to depose heathen Kings and Princes, is false, even out of the Prin●●● 〈…〉 and granted by himself. The matter is plain, and easy to be done, for in his second book De Rom. Pontif. he confesseth 
q Cap. 29.  that the Apostles and all other Christians were as well subject to heathen Princes, in all Civil causes, as other men, his words are these: I answer first it might be said that Paul appealed to Caesar, because indeed he was his judge, although not of right, for so doth john de Turrecremata answer: 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 between Heathen and Christian Princes: for when the Princes were heathen, the Bishop was not their judge, but clean contrary, he was subject to them in all civil Causes, no less than other men, for it is plain that the Bishop was not judge of them: because he is not a judge but of the faithful 1. Cor. 6. What have I to do, to judge of them which are without. And that of the contrary he is civilly subject to them, both of right and indeed, as it is plain. For the Christian law depriveth no man of his right and dominion, Therefore even as before the law of Christ men were subject to Emperors and to Kings: so also after. Wherefore Peter and Paul every where exhort the faithful, to be subject to Princes, as appeareth, ad Rom. 13. ad Titum 3. & 1. Pet. 2. Therefore worthily did Paul appeal to Caesar, and acknowledged him his judge, when he was accused of the sedition and tumult, which was raised amongst the people. Thus he, whereby it is plain, that not only want of strength was the reason, why the first Christians deposed not heathen Princes, but also, because all law both divine and human was against such an action, and in the same book and Chapter, he teacheth more openly, when he saith that to judge, punish, depose, belonged only to a superior, which is most true, and without all controversy is confirmed by the common judgement of men.  
And now by these most certain Principles set down and granted by him, every one that hath any skill in reasoning, may gather that the Christians, although they were mighty 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 unanswerable demonstration.  

subjects cannot judge, punish or depose a Superior.  
But all Christians were subject to Nero, Diocletian, etc. and other Emperors, and Heather Kings.  
Ergo, they could not depose such Emperors or Kings.   
The proposition is granted by him: and likewise the Assumption, which do stand upon most certain 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, etc. But for that they wanted temporal power & strength they forbore that purpose. Therefore it is false and worthy to be reprehended; For aientia & negantia simul vera esse nequeunt. Hereby also is the falsehood of the opinion of S. Thomas evident, which we have refuted above in this Chapter.   

CHAP. XXII.  
I Said that Bellarmine used a threefold argument for the confirmation of his third reason: which is, That it is not lawful for Christiant to tolerate an Infidel or Heretic King, whereof I have already noted the faults of the first. Now we must examine in this and the next Chapter what manner of arguments they are, and what strength they have. Therefore the second argument is this.  
To tolerate an Infidel or Heretic 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 infidel 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 God's law to keep and observe the true faith and religion, which is one only, and not many: but it is a point of man's law, that we have this or that King.  
To these things I answer, that Bellarmine and others from whom he had these, do not reason rightly, nor according to art, but do propound two arguments together confusedly and commixtly without form. For, for that which he assumes:  
But Christians are not bound, yea they ought not, without evident danger of religion, to tolerate an Infidel King.  
Instead whereof should have been placed in good Logic this Assumption.  
But Christians are not bound, yea they ought not to expose religion to evident danger:  
That the Conclusion might follow thereof:  
Ergo, It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an Infidel or Heretic King.  
For the assumption which he setteth down is almost just the same, with the Proposition that is in question. But to allow him somewhat, let us grant that he hath fall ioned and disposed his Reason in excellent good form, and let us answer to the force of the argument. I say then that his Proposition is false. I say again, that it is not true that, To tolerate an Heretic or Heathen King, endeavouring to draw men to his sect, is to expose Religion to manifest danger. But it is only to suffer Religion to lie in danger into which it is fallen by the fault of an Heretic or Infidel King, to which it is now exposed without the fault of the people: seeing now the people hath no just and lawful remedy left them to deliver Religion, but only Constancy and Patience. And this can not be imputed as a fault to Christians, unless we will by the same exception sharply accuse all those ancient fathers and Christians, who did without any shrinking or tergiversation, or without the least token of rebellion submisly obey Constantius, juliaenus, Valens, and other renouncers of Christian religion, because they came lawfully to the Empire, and whom they might most easily have removed or deposed, they honoured them with all honour, duty and reverence, even because they were their Emperors and Kings. These holy fathers then, and worthy Christians in that age, did tolerate Heretic and Infidel Kings, although if we only look at their temporal strength, they were furnished with excellent means and opportunities to depose them: and yet none that is in his wits will ever say that they exposed Religion to most evident danger, thorough that manner of Christian patience and tolerancy. Now I speak of tolerating that King, who either being a Heathen is ordained by the Heathen, where Christians do not rule: or who when he was admitted and installed into his Government, was accounted a Christian. For to elect a King over themselves, no law nor religion enforcing, whom they know to be either an Heretic or an Infidel, is indeed to expose Religion to most evident danger, and in that behalf, it were a grievous sin in the Christians: and they that do it, are worthy miserably to perish therefore.  
Now for that which he deduceth, out of the opposition between divine and human law, I answer ●ree●ly, that he is much deceived in this, that in this matter he supposeth there is a cross encounter and conflict between the law of God and the law of man. For they are not repugnant.  
To keep faith and Religion, and to tolerate an Infidel or Heretic King.  
Neither is the one by divine law, the other by human, as he imagineth: But they be two Precepts of God's law.  

1. To worship and serve God with true Religion.  
2. To obey and serve the King.   
Which may and aught to be kept and fulfilled together, as the Jesuits themselves affirm. 
a Contra Ar. nau●. pag. 69.  And we have proved at large, lib. 3. contra Monarchomacho●. 
b Cap. 8.  Therefore in this case the subjects not only may, but also ought, to tolerate such a King, and in the mean time to continue constantly in the true religion, and so to give to Caesar those things, which are Caesar's, and those things which are Gods, to God. For if, as Bellarmine delivereth, it be not lawful for a Counsel 
c Lib 3. de Rom. Pont. c 29.  to judge, punish or depose a Pope endeavouring to disturb or to destroy the Church of God but only,  
To resist him by not doing that which he commandeth, and hindering that he do not execute his pleasure.  
Why should we not in like manner, and with much more reason, hold the same judgement of Kings? Seeing that they also, by the testimony of the same 
d Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9 & lib 3. c. 19  Author, are superior to the People, and have no judge in earth: and whereas besides many famous Diumes be of opinion, that an Occumenicall Counsel hath greater authority over the Pope, than the people hath over the Prince? Because the Church is ever governed by the spirit of God, nor doth any thing rashly. And the Pope being often times moved and tossed with the winds and tempests of sedition enterpriseth many things wickedly, cruelly and unjustly, without counsel and judgement.  
But it is a hard matter to tolerate a wicked King, and to retain true Religion, will some reply. I grant indeed it is so, but it is not unpossible. Impossibility (I must crave pardon to use the word) excuseth from the observing of the Commandments, but difficulty and hardness doth not. But that he saith, That it is of the divine law to keep true faith and religion: but of human law, that we have this or that King. This surely is all true, but take heed Reader for all this, lest you be deceived. Bellarmine omitted that which was principal, for he ought to have added:  
But where we once have this or that King, it is of the divine law, that in Civil causes we obey him with all honour and reverence.  
By this adjection which no Catholic can deny, that Argument of his is crushed. For in the manner propounded by him, the law of God and Man do not concur, nor fall a cross one of another, as he imagineth, (which if it should fall out, it were reason that the human should yield to the divine) but in truth there concur two heads of the Divine law, the one, to observe faith and Religion, the other, To honour the King and to obey him in Civil matters. Both which may and ought to be fulfilled, By giving to Caesar, as is said, the things which are Caesar's, and which are Gods, to God, as we have learned out of Bellarmine's doctrine in the person of the Pope, endeavouring to destroy the Church.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
THere remains the last Argument, which he propounds by way of a subtle and captious question in this manner.  To conclude, why may not a faithful People, be freed from the yoke of an unfaithful King and drawing to Infidelity, if a believing wife be free from the Obligation of staying with an unbelieving husband: when he will not stay with his Christian wife, without injured to the faith, as he plainly deduceth out of Paul 1. ad Cor. 7. Innoc. 3. Cap. Gaudemus, extra de divortijs? for the power of the husband over the wise is no l●sse, then of the King over the subjects, but indeed somewhat more. 
There is nothing more frequent in the mouths of all the Monarchomachi, than this Argument: because they do easily deceive very many thereby, for it is such a one, as nothing doth move more vehemently at the first sight, and being looked into and understood doth urge more weakly. Therefore I answer to it, that these two points be very divers and unlike,  
To be delivered from some man's yoke; and  
To be delivered from the Obligation of remaining with some man.  
and therefore, that they are not rightly compounded and compared together, seeing that the husband himself, to whom the Obligation of remaining with an other is remitted, is not by this at all delivered from her yoke, from whom he departs. Whereof the Church yields us examples every day, which freeth and absolveth married Persons, for divers Causes, for Bed and Board, as they say, (that is) for conversation and obligation of Continuance one with the other, the Marriage bond never the less remaining, which is a Sacrament of Christ and the Church. Wherefore the force of such an Argument drawn from married persons is nothing, unless he proceed from the Matrimonial yoke, to the Regal yoke, as if he had said:  Why may not a faithful People be freed from the yoke of a King faithless, and drawing others to Infidelity, if a believing wife be free from the yoke of an unbelieved husband. 
Now if it please the Reverend Bellarmine to turn that his Argument into this, that it may have more moment and weight, than I will answer the same after an other manner. And thus. That either he speaks of those married persons who contracted Marriage, when they both were believers, and one of them fell into heresy or infidelity afterwards: or of heathen and infidel Couples, of whom the one converted to the faith, the other continuing obstinately in his Pagan superstition. If he understand his argument of the former, he doth slander his Author Innocentius, who speaks never a word of such a Matrimony in the said Cap. Gandemus: and besides it should be false, which he obtrudes to us for an argument, that the believing husband is free from the yoke of his unbelieving wife, when he will not continue with his Christian wife, without injury to the faith, as the same Innocentius expressly teacheth, in cap. Quanto. §. si verò. extra de Divort.  But if saith he, one of the believing married persons, either fall into Heresy, or pass over into the error of Gentility, we do not think that in this case the party that is left, may fly to any second marriage, while the other lives, although in this case the Contumely seemeth the greater which is offered to the Creator. 
And again the same Innocentius in Cap. exparte extra, De conuers. coningat. rescribeth to the same purpose: That Matrimony contracted between lawful persons, and consummate by carnal Copulation,  In no case can be dissolved, although one of the believers, between whom this Marriage is ratified, should prove an Heretic, and would not continue with the other, without Contumslie to the Creator. 
Behold the argument drawn from married Persons, doth not only not strengthen these men's Opinion, but also weakeneth, and even oppugneth the same, as if a man should in this manner propound the argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of interrogation.  Why should a believing People be freed from the yoke of a King unbelieving or heretical, endeavouring to draw his subjects to his sect, if a married person believing be not free from the yoke of the other Mate unbelieving, although he will not continue with the believing yoke-fellow, without inturie to the faith and contumely to the Creator. 
As Innocentius III. openly teacheth, in cap. Quanto. §. sivero. De Divort. & in cap. ex part. De conuers. coniugat. adeo ut Panorm. in illum. §. Si verò. doth say, out of the reason there laid, That the Church cannot dissolve such a Marriage, and free the believing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the unbelieving, when as notwithstanding a believing yoke-mate may much more easily be perverted by a yoke-mate unbelieving, than the whole people by a King. But the bond of the subjection, whereby the people is tied to the King, since it proceeds both from natural and divine Law, seemeth much more hard to be dissolved, then that of married Persons between themselves: that from thence a man may easily prove, that the Church can do no more in one then in the other.  
But if he understand his argument of the later married persons, the answer is easy, out of the same Decretal Epistle of Innocent, to wit. That between such couples the Marriage is not good, as much as appertains 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 married parsons have full liberty to dissolve the matrimony, that they may depart either with consent and good liking, or with mislike and displeasure, and the one of them, even against the liking of the other, may by refusal and divorce at his pleasure dissolve that knot of marriage: for the woman may as well send letters of divorce to the man as the man to the wife.  For (saith he) although the Matrimony among Infidels be true (because they go together according to the commandment of the laws) yet it is not firm. But amongst the believers it is both true and firm, because the Sacrament of faith being once admitted is never lost, but makes firm the Sacrament of marriage, that it continues in the married persons, while that continueth. 
It is no wonder then if the married persons brought to the faith, be free from the fellowship and power of his fellow, remaining in Infidelity, when as although both had continued in Infidelity, it had been even as free for each of them to depart from the other, & by divorce to dissolve marriage because in the beginning there passed no form and rate bond of Obligation between them. And therefore the Apostle doth not command but advise, that the believing wife should not depart from the unbelieving husband if he be willing to stay with her, as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coni●giis, and the holy Canons taken from thence do admonish us 
d 28. q. 1. C●n. 8 & 9 .  
Which matters since they stand thus, surely it followeth, that the adversaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from married persons to show that people may be freed from the Regal yoke, whether they regard the marriages of the Believers, or of the unbelievers: Because they are coupled with a most strait and indissoluble knot of society, whose band cannot be broken, no not by the Church itself, neither for Infidelity nor Heresy of the one part. So as from hence he doth furnish us with an argument tending rather to maintain the strength and perpetuity of Regal authority, then to dissolve and destroy the same; And these are tied by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church, but the husband converted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandal, may at his pleasure take to him another: And again, the woman brought to the faith, if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom she will. Seeing therefore there is no firm marriage between these and the politic subjection, and Kingly domination and rule, is ratified and approved amongst all Nations, and in every law, as well by divine as human power, what can be more unreasonable or fond then to compare and suit them together, and to deduce any argument from the society and yoke of unbelieving married persons, which may be shaken of at pleasure, to break the yoke of Regal power and authority, and to make the same judgement of them both, as if they were as like as might be.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
I Told you in the twenty-three. Chapter, that there were five reasons in Bellarmine, whereby he would prove, that the Pope hath temporal power over all secular Kings, and Princes Christian: of which reasons we have run thorough three, and observed how weak they are, and of what diseases they labour, it remaineth now, that we make our survey of the other two, which are not a whit better conditioned. The first whereof is by him laid down in these words.  When Kings and Princes come to the Church to be made Christians, they are received with a Covenant, either express or secret, that they should subject their Sceptres to Christ's, and promise that they will observe and defend the faith of Christ, yea under the penalty of losing their kingdom. Ergo. When they prove Heretics, or hurt Religion they may be judged by the Church, and withal be deposed from their government, neither shall any injury be done them, if they be deposed. 
I answer this reason, by denying the consequent. For although it be true that Princes coming to the Church, do submit themselves and their sceptres to Christ, and even of their own accord do make those promises either secretly or expressly which Bellarmine reporteth; yet it is not true, neither doth it follow thereof, that they may be judged and deposed by the Church or Pope if they break their promise, or neglect to keep their Covenant and Oath. Because that sovereign jurisdiction and temporal power of Christ over all Kings and the whole world which he hath as the son of God, doth not appertain to the Church or Pope: but that power only which Christ assumed to himself, when he was conversant amongst men after the manner of men, according to which the Pope is Christ's Vicar. Whereupon Bellarmine himself writeth 
a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4.  excellently well:  We say, quoth he, that the Pope hath that office which Christ had, when after the manner of men he lived amongst men in the world. For we may not give the Pope those offices which Christ hath as God, or as animmortall and glorious man, but only those, which he had as a mortal man. 
But Christ usurped no temporal dominion and power when he lived 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 have any temporal power, as the same learned man declareth and proveth at large, in that Chapter, Wherefore although Kings and Princes when they come to the Church, do subject their Kingdoms to the Lord Christ, and have Christ their judge from whom they have also their Kingdom: but because the judgement is of a temporal affair, when the business is touching a kingdom forfeited, they have him only their judge, and not the Church or the Pope. Whereby it doth easily appear how captious those reasons and conclusions are which Sanders, from whom Bellarmine hath received this stuff of his, doth deduce out of those manner of promises, made either secretly or expressly. For as concerning those forms of ask and answering, which he with many idle words and falsely deviseth between the Pope and the Princes which come to the Church: we must answer, that they are fond conceived by him, and that they neither aught, nor are accustomed to pass in the admittance of Heathen Princes, which come to the Church, lest the Church should seem either to suspect them, or to divine and conceive ill of them for the time to come. Therefore their burning love towards Christ, and present confession of their faith, whereby they in general terms promise, that they will give there names to Christ and become children of the Church, and will renounce the devil and his works, and keep the commandments of God and the Church, and such like, are cause sufficient enough, that they should be received. All which matters they do indeed promise to Christ, the Church receiving the promise, as his Spouse, in whose bosom they are regenerate; or the Bishop himself, not as a man, but as a Minister of Christ, God himself discharging a Deputies office herein, and therefore the obligation is principally taken to Christ himself, by the Church or the Pope. Whereby although they have also promised all other things, which Sanders hath comprehended in that forged form of his, and shall afterwards neglect, or wholly contemn that covenant agreed on, they can be punished by him only, into whose words they did swear, and who is the Lord of all temporal estates, and whom they have for their only judge over them intemporall matters, but not by him to whom the care only of spiritual matters and to take the promise is committed.  
And to these spiritual matters are those things most like, and most resemble them which we see daily to be observed in the civil Government. They who aspire to the succession of Feudes or Fees, whether they come in by hereditary right or by any other title, cannot enjoy them, unless they first be admitted into his clientele and service who is Lord of the Fee, that is, unless they in words conceived do take the oath of fealty to the Lord, which they commonly call Homagium or Hominium. But if it be the King's fee to which they succeed, the King doth seldom in his own Person take the oath of fealty, but executeth that business for the most part by his Chancellor, or soem other Deputy especially assigned for that purpose. Therefore the Chancellor when he admits to Fees and Honours great Personages swearing into the King's words, he dischargeth the same office under the King in a Civil administration and jurisdiction, which the Pope doth under Christ, in the spiritual government of the Church, when he receives Princes coming unto her, by taking the oath of their faithfulness and piety towards God: And the Chancellor, the Tenant once admitted, (although after he break his oath, and commit the crime which they call Felony) 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 deprive of Kingdoms and authority, or any way temporally punish Princes received into the Church, although they offend grievously afterward, or forsake the faith: Because that is reserved to God only. Therefore although Christian Kings and Princes be in the Church, and in respect that they are the Children of the Church, be inferior to the church and the Pope, notwithstanding in regard that they do bear a sovereign rule temporal in the world, they are not inferiors, but rather superiors: and therefore although they have forfeited their kingdom by secret or express covenant, yet neither people, nor Pope, nor church can take it away from them: But only Almighty God alone, from whom is all power, and to whom alone they are inferior in Civil administration. And neither shall Bellarmine nor any other be ever able to bring, or as I may say, to dig out of the monuments of any age, any forcible argument, whereby he may make it plain unto us, that secular Kings and Princes when they were received to the Faith by the Church, did in such manner renounce their interest, as both to lay down altogether the temporal authority which they had received of God, and also to subject themselves to the Church, to be judged in Civil affairs, and to be chastised with temporal punishment. And if none of them can demonstrate this, they must needs confess, that Kings and Princes did after the faith received, retain their Kingdoms and Empires, in the same Right, the same Liberty, and Authority, wherein they possessed them, before such time as they came to the Church, because, as the Adversaries do confess, Lex Christineminem private iure suo. If therefore, before Baptism they had no judge above them in temporal matters, but God alone: neither ought they to have any after Baptism. But we have spoken more of this matter in the refutation of the first reason. In this place I stand not much upon Bozius his dotages.  
Now for that he underlaies after this fourth reason, in the words following.  For he is not fit to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, who is not ready to serve Christ, and for his sake to lose whatsoever 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 even his own life, he cannot be my Disciple. 
I cannot tell, to what end he useth these words. Surely no man denies it. But what of it? Such a reason belongs no more to the purpose, then that which is furthest from the matter, nor that neither which followeth in the same place. Besides saith he, the Church should grievously err, if she should admit any King which would with impunity cherish every manner of sect, and defend heretics, and overthrow 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 temporal power of the Church, or of the Pope, who is the substitute head thereof under Christ: I mean, whether he have that power, whereby he may chastise with temporal punishments Kings and Princes duly received, if after they shall break the faith, and forsake the duty, undertaken by them in the laver of regeneration or no. Now neither part of this question is either proved or disproved by these correllaries and additions, and for this cause we pass them over.   

CHAP. XXV.  
THe fifth and last reason is drawn, from his Pastoral charge and office: in these words.  
When it was said to Peter, Feed my sheep, john the last, all the power was given him, which was necessary to maintain the flock.  
But a shepherd hath a threefold charge, one about Wolves, that he drive them away by all means he can: the other about the Rams, that he may shut them up, if they hurt the flock with their horns: the third about the rest of the sheep, that he give every one convenient food: Ergo, The Pope hath this triple charge.  
Out of this principle and foundation are drawn three strong arguments as he surmiseth. But not to go far, first I answer to this very fundamental proposition: that it is all true, and maketh for me, and that the very contrary of that which he affirms may very handsomely be gathered from thence, I say, gathered, that the Pope hath no temporal power at all, or may exercise any upon Christian Princes, as he is the Vicar of Christ, and successor of S. Peter, seeing such a manner of power is not necessary for the Pope, for the discharging and fulfilling of his Pastoral duty.  
And that is evidently concluded by this argument: Christ by commending his sheep to Peter, gave him all power necessary to defend the flock: But he gave him no temporal power: Therefore temporal power is not necessary to defend the flock. Secondly, we will proceed in this manner. It is a thing unreasonable, that the Pope, who is the successor of S. Peter, should have more power than had Peter himself: But Peter had not any temporal power over Christians; Therefore, Neither the Pope as he is his successor.  
The proposition of the former reason, is without all controversy true. And the Assamption is proved by the testimony and confession of Bellarmine himself. For lib. quint. de Rom. Pontif. where he endeavours 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 do the two powers in the Church; for the flesh and the spirit, be as it were two commonwealths, which may be found both separated and toyn together, flesh is found without the spirit in beasts: spirit is found without flesh in the Angels: and a little after. Even so the Civil power hath her Princes, Laws, judgements, etc. Likewise the Ecclesiastical, her Bishops, Canons, judgements: the one hath for her end a temporal peace: the other, everlasting salvation: sometimes they are found severed, as once in the time of the Apostles, sometime toyn as now.  
If these powers were severed in the time of the Apostles, as in truth they were, both in Right and in Deed, it followeth necessarily, that S. Peter had no temporal power, otherwise it should be false, that they were severed, for it there be place to the similitude propounded by him, it will follow, that as there is nothing fleshly in Angels, and nothing spiritual in beasts: so in the time of the Apostles, there should be no temporal power in the Church, or spiritual in the Civil state. Therefore we must confess, either that temporal power is not necessary for the chief Pastor of the Church: or that the Prince of the Apostles himself, and chief Pastor S. Peter, was not furnished and accomplished with all things necessary for the discharge of his Pastoral duty. And this is as contrary, as contrary may be, to that which he had already said in his fundamental reason, as I may call it: to wit,  That all ability necessary to defend the flock, was given to Peter. 
The same also is proved by this, that all civil and temporal power at that time depended of heathen Princes, to whom Peter himself, witness Bellarmine 
b Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. ca 29. , although the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, was subject in temporalities, both by Right and in Deed. Whereof it followeth, that either S. Peter was induced with no temporal power, or that he received it from heathen Princes: otherwise as we said before, it should be false, that those powers were then separated. But it is certain that he received none of them, and therefore that he had none at all. And certainly these reasons are more plain, than any man without fraud and cunning can gainsay: that it is a wonder to see that learned men and otherwise godly, should so be blinded with an inconsiderate and unadvised heat, that they should not stick to embrace and follow doubtful things for certain, obscure for evident, crooked for strait: for plain and easy reasons, those which be perplexed and intricately bewrapped with many controversies and contradictions. But they take care, you will say, to amplify and adorn the Sea Apostolic with the increase and accession of this power and authority. And is there any Catholic, who doth not commend their minds that are affected to that Sea, which is the foundation and strength of our faith? That they do grace and advance by all means that Sea, which no man can sufficiently commend according to her worth, I do much commend them: but that they attribute more to it, then is fit, and that with the great scandal of many, that I do not commend, for we ourselves also do no less honour the same Sea, we no less love, reverence, admire it: as that which is the true seat of Peter, and being placed in the rock which is Christ, hath overcome all heresies, and obtaineth by good right the chief place in the Church. But the truth forbids, that we should advance her with this increase of Power: our Conscience bearing us witness, before God, and the Lord jesus, before whom in the day of the revelation of the just judgement, both these our writings, and theirs shall appear, consigned with their own merits.  
Therefore, there is small cause, why they should bring this former reason for themselves. For Christ when he said to Peter, Pasce oves meas, appointed him indeed Pastor of his flock: but a Spiritual Pastor not a Temporal: and gave him all ability necessary for that office, whereby it appears that Temporal power is not necessary for the Pope, because Christ gave it not to Peter himself. Neither have we heard any where that either S. Peter or any other of his Apostles, did practise any temporal power or authority, by virtue whereof he did either directly, or indirectly (that no man may suppose any force in words) punish the forsakers of the Christian faith with Civil punishment after the manner of Magistrates. It is true indeed that sometimes it hath come to pass, that Temporal punishment as death or Torment hath followed a spiritual sentence: the church at that time standing in need of miracles and wonders to confirm the faith, which kind of punishments, did strike a far greater fear into the minds of Christians, then if after the manner of men they had suffered punishment at the hands of Civil Magistrates. And this is that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians: 
3 1. Corin. 4.  What will you? shall I come to you with a rod or in love and in the spirit of meekness? The rod he calleth that spiritual power, which by the wonderful working of God, did at that time produce wonderful effects, as even at this day sometimes, he upon the like occasion doth produce, among people which be newly won to Christ.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
SEeing these matters stand thus, the way is made more easy for us to refute those arguments which Bellarmin deduceth out of his former foundation, being now already opened by us, and retorted back upon himself, for they fall to ground, partly thorough their own fault and weakness, and partly because they are not well set upon the foundation, whereon they are built. For first out of that, that Power is necessary for the Pastor about the Wolves, that be may drive them away by any mean he can, he reasoneth in this manner.  
Wolves which destroy the Church of God are Heretics:  
Ergo If any Prince of a Sheep or a Ram become a Wolf, that is, of a Christian become an Heretic, the Pastor of the Church may drive him away by excommunication, and also command the People, that they do not follow him, and therefore may deprive him of his government over his subjects.  
But he is deceived or doth deceive us, by shuffling together true and false things into the same Conclusion. For in that he saith, that the Pastor of the Church may drive away an Heretic Prince by excommunication, that is very true, and is derived out of that principle by a necessary consecution. But that he may only, marry that he ought not to do it, but at such times when as he may commodiously do it, without scandal and hurt to the Church, as I have de-declared before 
a Cap. 9 . For where there is danger lest the peace of the Church may be dissolved, and lest The member of Christ be torn in pieces by sacrilegious schisms. the severe mercy of the divine discipline is necessary (that is to say, is wholly to be left to the judgement and punishment of God) for Counsel of separation, (that is of excommunication) are both vain, and hurtful and Sacrilegious, because they become both impious and preud, and do more disturb the weak good ones, then correct the s●urdy ill ones.  

b 〈…〉.  This is the doctrine of S. Angustine, approved by the common voice of the Church, whereby it is evident, how ras●ly and unwisely, certain Popes, have separated from the Church by excommunication, most mighty Emperors and Kings, with the great scandal of the whole world, and dissolution of the peace of the Church, whom it had been far better to have tolerated, and to have discovered their faults only, and with mourning to have bewailed them in the Church.  For the comparison of the Peace and Unity which was to be kept, and for the salvation of the weak brethren, and such as now were fed only with milk, lest the members of the body of Christ should be torn in pieces, by sacrilegious schisms 
d 〈…〉 . 
Therefore the Popes might do this, but they ought not. Non omne quod licet, honestum est. Very well saith the Apostle 
e 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 drive away heretic Princes by excommunication.  
But that which followeth, (and withal command the people, that they follow him not) hath two ears to hold by, as I may say with Epictetus, the one sound, the other broken. I mean a twofold understanding, the one true, the other faulty. For if he speak in this sense, that it is the duty of the Pope, to command the subjects, that they follow not an heretic Prince in his heresy, that they run not with him in his madness, nor admit and swallow down his damnable errors; for that they suffer not themselves, to be infected and defiled with his filthy and corrupt manners it is as true, and is derived very truly out of the same principle and fountain, and this is the best sense of those words. For there is nothing so convenient and comely for the pontifical dignity, and the whole order ecclesiastic, nothing so profitable and necessary for Christian people, as that according to the pattern of the ancient fathers of the Church, the principal Bishop himself first, and the rest of his brethren, all of them, should preach the word, should be instant in season, and out of season, convince, entreat, rebuke, in all patience and doctrine 
f .2 Timoth. 4. . That like Faithful witnesses and good servants whom the Lord hath set over his family, they may so work both by word and example, that the people follow not the errors of their King, nor either dissemble, nor forsake the Catholic faith, thorough any either threatenings or allurements of the King, which because most of them either do not all at this day, or at the least much more slackly than they ought, and that duty, which it becomes them to perform themselves, they put over to certain begging Friars: what marvel is it if many in our age, have been carried away as it were with a whirl wind of errors from the Lords sheepfolds, into the toils of the devil. This, as I have said, is the best sense: But notwithstanding that Bellarmine doth not speak 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 gives us the broken care of the pot, I mean the corrupt, and the very worst sense of those words: forsooth, that the pastor of the Church may command the subject, that they execute no commandment of such a Prince, and that by any means they yield him no reverence, obedience, honour, in those matters which belong even to a temporal and civil authority. And therefore deprive him of his dominion over his subjects. But this is false, and flat contrary to the law of God, and precepts of the Apostles. Fear the Lord, my son, and the King 
g Prou. 24. : Admonish them to be subject to Princes and powers, to obey their commandment 
h Tit. 3. . Be subject to every creature for God, or to the King as sovereign, fear God honour the King, and divers 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 unworthiest kind of Kings. Therefore this is that which I said before, that either he deceives of purpose, or is deceived, by shuffling together true and false points into the same conclusion. For it is true, that a Pastor of the Church, may drive away an heretic Prince by excommunication: but it is false that he may deprive him of his dominion over his subjects. 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 mean dispense with people against the same?  
For they that with more diligence, and exact care do search the scriptures, do observe 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 infinite his Epistles are full, wherein are these also which he delivers touching obedience and reverence to be given to Kings and Princes. And the other kind is of those things, which do not depend of the law of nature or the express word of God, but which the Apostle himself of his proper authority ordaineth by human wisdom assisted by the grace of God, for the ordering and settling of the worship of God, as that a Bigamus or a quarreler, be not admitted to a Bishopric 
k 1. Timoth. 5. , that a widow under the age of 60. years, be not chosen to the office of deaconess, and the like. And between these commandments the difference is, that in those which be of the latter kind, the Pope may dispense for some cause: For he hath no less authority, than the Apostle himself, 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 laws 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, neque servus supra Dominum 
n Math. 10. . The inferior may not break the law of his superior: or qualify the same to pleasure any. For which cause Speculator doth affirm that the Pope can not absolve any man from a lawful 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 witness, that he may be believed unsworne in a judgement 
p Hi●polyt de Marsil. sing. 214. . And Innocentius III. Pope in his rescript witnesseth, that the Pope can not grant licence to a Monk, that either he may have the property of any goods, or have a wife 
q Cap cum ad monasterium. de stat. monachor. .  
I am not ignorant, with what a far fetched and trifling explication, certain Canonists interpreters, who submit all things to the power of the Pope, do bend and wrest from the proper and native signification of the words, that same place of Innocentius, against the judgement of the best sort of divines. I am persuaded that it troubled them, which they had heard, that Constantia the daughter of Rogerius Normannus, a Nun, was by Clement the III. brought out of the Monastery of Panormus, to be married to Henry the VI son of Fredrick Aenobarbus, of whom the Archbishop of ●lorence writeth, that when she was fifty 
● Part. 3. tit. 19 cap. 6.  years of age, and had long professed a Monastical religion, that she bore Fredrick the II. And that she might take away all suspicion of a supposite and foisted birth, that she was openly delivered in the middle of a street in Panormus, under a sheet over spread: proclamation being made before, that it should be lawful for all women to be present, who would come to see that spectacle. Therefore this Fredrick was borne saith he, of a Nun that was now fifty years of age) and because they had heard also that an other Pope had granted a certain King of Arragon an indulgence, that of a Monk he might be a married man. Wherefore these men I mean the Canonists, being beyond all measure addicted to the Popes, being loath to reprehend such manner of actions, lest they should do disgrace to their Popes, who were greedy of honour, and knowing that the words of the prescript set forth by Innocent the III. did affirm the contrary, they laboured to help themselves by such foolish interpretations, as it irketh me to report in this place, lest I should entertain the reader with toys. But it had been much easier for them, to maintain the truth and the equity of the rescript, then to practise to make a certain law of the singular, and unlawful actions of Popes, as though they were a rule to live by Let us su●ter the Popes to give account of their actions to God, neither let us imitate them in all things. But if any do propound to us for examples such actions of theirs, we will answer with joan de Tur. Crem, Silvester, Sotus, and other learned men: That these were deeds of Popes, but not decrees, and that the deeds of the Popes, do 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 Silvester, have seen a Pope do greater matters, with the canda●● of whole Christianity: and john de Tur. Crem. speaking of unlawful 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 money, which is wont to be offered for such exorbitant dispensations, or that he might please any man, it doth not follow that he might justly do those things. The Church is governed or ought to be governed by Right and Laws, not by such actions or Examples.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
THerefore it is the opinion of many learned men that the Pope cannot give power to a religious Person to break his vow, that he may have the property of any goods or a wife, according to the true and simple sense of Innocentius his words. And yet if we will diligently search and consider how much some things differ from other, and with a right judgement to compare them together in the points wherein they properly agree or differ: there will because to confess that the Pope hath far less power given him to absolve a People from the Religion-of their oath, by which they have willingly and frankly obliged their faith to their Prince, then to dissolve the vows of religious Persons, that although in this last point peradventure, in some men's opinion, he may seem to have power to do something deplenitudine potestatis, yet in the other we must think that he is able to do just nothing. Both for that the whole Order Monarchal, and other Orders in the Church (as certain think) have proceeded from human Constitutions, and the positive law, over whom in that consideration the Pope hath full and all manner of power that may be, as we have said a little before. But the submission and obedience due to Kings and Princes and all Magistrates and superiors is grounded upon the law of Nature and of God, being confirmed by both the Testaments. For although it be a matter of human law and ordination to use this or that form of Commonwealth or Government, or to have this or that Prince; but to reverence him, whom we had once received, and submisly to obey him in all things, which are not contrary to God's commandments, it is a matter not only of human, but also both of Natural and Divine institution. And this I think, no man will deny. Quipotestati resistit, Deiordination● resistit. Whereby it cometh to pass, that that which was free and arbitrary in the beginning, that is presently turned into a necessity of obedience after that one faith of subjection is given.  
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 businesses 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 do interpret and construe that by the promise of a great good, (or performance) there is satisfaction made, to the Lord God, who is the principal creditor in that business, peradventure it will not be very absurd to say, that there may by chance prove a liberation and freedom from the knot of the former vow and promise: unless some may think, that it cannot be for this cause, because the transgression of a lawful vow, is simply and of his own nature sinful, and that which is sinful may not be allowed to be done to obtain any good, although it be very great, 
a Rome 3.  But the solution of that objection is very easy.  
But the matter 〈◊〉 far otherwise in the case of an Oath, which men in their bargains and covenants are wont to take to confirm and ratify another Obligation thereby. Seeing such a manner of oath is a certain increase of that obligation, to which it is added for security, in such manner as suerties●ip, or assurance of any Pledge or Moregage is usually taken. And therefore although the oath be said to be made to God, yet in this case the obligation doth accrue not to God principally, but to the person to whom the oath is sworn: quia per juramentum ●urans non intendebat placere Deo, sed satisfacere proximo 
b Panor●●. in cap. 1 〈◊〉. 4 the 〈◊〉. . Whereby it cometh to pass, that he to whom the Oath is taken, hath much more interest by that Oath, and obtaineth much more power either to retain it, or to remit it, then is granted to the Church in a vow, for the Church or Pope, (even as they confess who submit all things to his pleasure) cannot without great and just cause dispense with the solemn vow of Religion. But he to whom an other hath by oath bound his faith in the matter of giving or doing, may both alone, and without cause, of his mere pleasure wholly free the Promiser from the Religion of his Oath, and 〈◊〉 it to him, whatsoever it be, of himself; so as his only leave and good will obtained, neither is there any more need of the Pope's absolution, neither if he shall not perform that which he promised, may he be reputed guilty of perjury before God. Therefore it is in a man in this Case, who can at his pleasure either retain one that is bound, or dismiss 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 mean by the Law natural, divine and human, by an oath every manner of way lawful, which was added to the lawful contract? seeing 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 showing the contrary seeing presumption yieldeth to the truth 
c I. v●t D. quoth met. ca l continum. 127 §. ●um ita D. de verb. ob●●g. .  
But let it be, that he may upon cause take it away, and free the Promiser from the bond of his Oath, (because I will not strive longer with the Canonists about this matter) let him then take it away, and what then force after think you will seem in this our business? you will say that the people will be free from the commandment and subjection of the Prince, a soon as they are loosed from the bond of their oath. Think you so indeed? what do you not see, that this Oath, is but an Accessary only, to ratify and assure the Obligation, whereby loyalty and obedience was promised to the Prince? do you not know that Accessaries are taken away and discharged with avoiding of the principal Obligation, for although the principal being canceled the Accessary falls, yet by the taking away of the Accessaries the Principal is not destroyed. Therefore the Obligation remaineth yet, to which this Oath was added: which because it consists upon natural and divine Law, doth no less straightly hold the minds 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 
d Can. juramenti. 22. q. 5. , as much as concerns keeping faith of the promise. Although the breaker of his Oath offendeth more, by reason of the contempt of God; and notwithstanding that in the external Court Perjury is more grievously punished, by reason of the solemnity of the promise, than the faith neglected of a man's single promise and bare word, as we say.  
But if the Pope would also cancel this Obligation de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, and deliver and discharge the Subjects from the Oath of the King: and enjoin them that they should not dare to obey his requests, commandments and laws under pain of Excommunication: Shall not the express commandment of God seem to contraveene this warrant of the Pope, I mean the commandment of the honouring of Kings with all obedience? Is it not lawful in such a business and in a cause the greatest almost that may be, to do that which the Pope's interpreters are accustomed to do, in Controversies of less moment? And that is, to make diligent and careful inquisition into this same plenitudinem Potestatis, whether it extend itself so far, as that by it should expressly be forbidden, which God doth expressly command? or that which God directly forbids to be done, the same may lawfully be commanded by it? God commands me by Solomon to fear the King: by his Apostles to honour the King, to be subject and obedient to him. This surely is a commandment both of natural and divine Law: that the inferior should obey the superior, as long as he forbiddeth not, who is superior to them both, in the same kind of power. And he in this business between the people and the Prince, when the question is about temporal authority and subjection, is God alone, than whom alone the King is less in temporal matters, as in spiritual the Pope.  
Seeing then all men do ingenuously confess, that this fullness of the Apostolic power is not so great, that the Pope may in any sort dispense in those things, which are bidden or forbidden by the express word of God (which Axiom, or Proposition Bellarmine chiefly resteth on, while he would show,  That the Pope cannot subject himself to the coactive sentence of Counsels. The Pope's power over all men is, (saith 
Lib 2. cap 18. the Council.  he) by the law of God: but the Pope cannot dispense in the law of God. 
We ought not to marvel a whit, if the Divine commandments of fearing and honouring the King, are so deeply impressed in the minds of many Subjects, that they giveno place to contrary precepts, but rather employ all their care that there be no obedience at all given to the adverse edicts of the Pope either absolutory or prohibitory: It hath been oft told me by great Personages, and those good men, that that divine Precept of honouring Kings, was of so great force with them, and had taken so deep root in their minds, that they did persuade themselves, that by no Bulls nor contrary Indulgences they could be discharged of the scruple and weight of conscience, and purchase security in the inner man, uz. their souls, that they should not perform and execute so clear and manifest a commandment of Natuarll and Divine law, nor yield 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. Emperor, none from Philip the Fair, none also from Lewes the 12. both Kings of France, by reason of the Pope's Bulls and Censures, containing sentence of Deposition. For that we mistake not any way we must understand, that this Plenitude of Apostolical power, doth only comprehend that power which the Lord jesus the son of God, when he lived in the world, as a man amongst men, was pleased to have: and that so far the Popes represent Christ unto us, and is his Vicar, (as we have showed above out of the doctrine of the most learned Bellarmine) but not that power which he as the son of God, and God himself, equal with the father had from all eternity, and reserved to the omnipotency of his Divinity. Whereof he saith, All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth 
f Math. ult. .  
Although I see some play the fools, or rather the madmen so much, that they athrme, that this Omnipotency is also given to the Pope, and to prove the same do spin out a notorious argument of their own vanity, in this manner.  
Christ committed to the Pope the deputation of his office, as it is Matth. 16. cap. & 24. q. 1. can. quodcunque But all power in Heaven and in Earth was given 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. unum sanctam. de maior & obed. Who also was so bold as to add, that which is not far from blasphemy.  For the Lord should not seem to have been wise or discreet (that I may speak it with his reverence) unless he had left such a one behind him, who could do all these things. 
Had this man think you any brain? No marvel if Io. Gerson said, that Pusillos', little ones, that is to say, simple and ignorant Christians, being deceived by such kind of unskilful Glos●ators and Postillators,  Estimare Papam unum Deum, qui habet potestatem omnem in Caelo & in Terra. 
Surely such gross flatterers have spoiled and corrupted the judgement and lives of many Popes. Neither is it marvel, if Pius the fifth the Pope, did tell Martinus Aspilineta, That the Lawyers, (he meant the Canonists, I think) were accustomed to attribute a great deal too much power to the 
g 〈◊〉 in comm●n. can. non 〈◊〉 Papa 12. q. 2.  Pope. Of whom john de Turre cremata,  It is a great wonder 
h In Ca● 〈◊〉. 3 q. 2.  (saith he) that Popes do speak moderately of the power which is given them; Even certain paltry Doctorculi, without any true ground, will needs by flattery make them equal with God. 
To which appertains that which the Cardinal of Cusa writeth, a man very conversant in all Philosophy human and divine, and in story beside; that certain writers being willing to exalt the Roman See, worthy of all praise, more a great deal then is expedient or comely for the holy Church, do ground themselves on apocryphal writings, and so deceive both Popes and people.   

CHAP. XXVIII.  
NOw the error of these men, whereby they give to the Pope all power both human and divine, was bred partly out of the Apocryphal writings, as hath been said; partly out of certain rescripts of Popes, being conceived more darkly than was cause, and wrong understood, according to the letter, as they say. For, to speak the truth, there is no kind of people more unskilful and ignorant, than these bare and mere Canonists are: which I would not have understood only of the knowledge of liberal learning, and of the property of speech, for this kind of ignorance is to be borne withal in them, as the common fault of that age wherein they wrote: but even of the knowledge of that very art which they profess, which they have clouded and darkened with infinite varieties of distinctions and opinions. For the greatest part of them dwelled only in the Pope's Canons and Constitutions, seeking none or very little outward help out of divinity and other sciences, as they should have done. Those Rescripts whereof I speak, and which bred error in these men, are extant under the title of De translatione Episcopi, 
a Ca 2. 3. & 4.  wherein Innocent the third compareth the spiritual marriage, which is contracted between the Bishop and the Church, with the carnal marriage, which is between a man and a woman: first in that, because as the carnal matrimony taketh her beginning from the Espousals, and is ratified by marriage, and consummate by commistion of bodies: so also the spiritual contract of marriage, which is between the Bishop and the Church, is understood to have his beginning in the election, his ratifying in confirmation, and to be consummate in consecration Secondly in this, that the speech of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, Those whom God hath joined, let not man separate, is to be understood of both the matrimonies, both carnal and spiritual. Seeing therefore, saith he, the spiritual bond is stronger than the carnal, it ought not to be doubted, but that Almighty God hath reserved only to his judgement the dissolution of the spiritual marriage which is between the Pope and the Church, who hath reserved only to his own judgement the dissolution of the carnal marriage, which is between the man and the woman: commanding, that whom God hath joined together, man should not separate. And again: As the bond of lawful matrimony, which is between man and wife, cannot be dissolved by man, the Lord saying in the Gospel, 
b Mat●. 19  Those whom God hath joined, let not man separate: so the spiritual contract of marriage, which is between the Pope and the Church, cannot be dissolved without his authority, who is the Successor of Peter, and Vicar of jesus Christ.  
And lest any man should object, If God have reserved to his own only judgement the dissolution of both the marriages, both carnal and spiritual, and the spiritual bond is stronger than the carnal: how can it be, that the Pope, who is surely but a man, can dissolve that spiritual bond? Innocentius answereth in that place, that it is done in that regard, because they are separated, not by human, but by divine power, who by the authority of the Bishop of Rome are removed from the Church, by translation, deposition, or session. 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 necessity or profit of the Church, dissolveth, not by human, but rather by divine authority. Thus he.  
These manner of speeches, and the cause that these men are carried headlong in that error, that they suppose, whatsoever is done by the Pope, is done by God himself, because the words of Innocent seem to carry this meaning. I confess, that there is no place in the whole Pontificial Law more plain and open for the words, nor more hard for the sense, that in expounding the same, the wits of all Interpreters do fail. For what can be spoken more understandatly, plainly, and clearly then this; That not man, but God doth separate those whom the Bishop of Rome doth separate or dissolve? Or what followeth more rightly of any thing, than this of that position: Ergo, that the Bishop of Rome may dissolve matrimony, which is consummate, carnal copula, between married persons? And yet there is nothing more false than this conclusion; and therefore we must confess, that that whereof it followeth, is false also, because that which is false can never follow of that which is true. Which when Hostiensis had observed, when (I say) he had considered the inconsequence of that reason: 
c In sum de elect. n●. 25.  But that reason, quoth he, saving his authority and reverence that gave it, is not sufficient, unless it be otherwise understood: for by that it would follow, that be might also by his authority divide carnal matrimony. But for all that, Hostiensis doth not tell us how this gear ought to be understood otherwise: neither can he extricate himself from hence, that he may maintain his opinion with the preservation of the truth. For, that he supposeth it might be understood of carnal matrimony, because, as he saith, before carnal copulation by a common dissent, it may be dissolved, the Pope's authority coming between: arg. cap. 2 & cap. expublico de conuers. coniugat. Surely this interpretation is void of all authority and reason: for as touching the rescripts alleged by him, and if there be any such like, they speak of that dissolution of matrimony which is made by election of religion, and when one of the married persons entereth into a Monastery, before their bodies be commixed nuptialis thori amplexibus: in which case there is no need of the Pope, authority to intervene, or any pontificial dispensation: but that they are warranted by mere right, and the common help of the law, who in that manner do procure a separation, and break off matrimony. 
d Cap. ex part 14. §. Nos tamen & d. cap. 2. the conuers. contugat.  But that a matrimony ratified, and not yet consummate, may upon another cause be dissolved by the authority of the Pope, by the common dissent of the parties, that we are to deny constantly, and that according to the most learned Divines. For the conjunction and commission of bodies doth neither add nor take away any thing from the substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or essence of matrimony: for the form of matrimony consisteth in the declaration of the individed conjunction, and consent of minds, whereby they do naturally give themselves one to the other. But the procreation of children, and the bed-fellowship for that cause, is referred not to the constitution of matrimony, but to the end 
e 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 bed, but the consent of the minds makes marriages 
f 〈◊〉 D. 〈…〉. can. cum 〈◊〉 27 q. 2. . And the same is confirmed by the sacred Canons and Constitutions 
g 〈…〉 . Otherwise surely that first marriage, which God instituted in Paradise, was not a marriage, until the married persons being cast out from thence, began to provide for issue: than which what can be more absurd? Moreover, there is no Constitution or Tradition of the Church, no authority of Fathers, no decretal Epistle of the Pope, in a word, there is no certain and solid reason to be found, which doth except from that sentence of our Saviour, matrimony ratified, although not consummate: Quos Deus con●unxit, homo ne separet. Nay and he cannot except, unless it be true, that they, who being contracted, are in the face of the Church joined in the Sacrament of matrimony, are not joined by God.  
But there is in this matter, as in others, so great either Ignorance or flattery of divers Interpreters of the pontificial Law, that they are not ashamed to aver, that not only matrimony ratified, but not consummate, (and that against the common judgement of the Divines, but also Matrimony both ratified and consummated by carnal conjunction, may be dissolved by the Pope, aswell as by God himself: 
h Uide Covarrwiam de matrim. part. 2. §. 4. ubi id notat & reprebendt.  which if it should be true, how weak the bond of Matrimony would prove amongst them, who have grace and power with the Pope, or otherwise may corrupt him with bribes, being blinded with desire of money, I leave to others to judge. But there is no cause, why they should think that their opinion is strengthened by the former rescripts of Innocentius: seeing the Pope himself in an other place expressly faith, 
i Cap. ex part 4 § not aute m. de converse. coniugat.  that Matrimony between lawful persons, with words of the present time, Contracted, may in no case be dissolved, except before that marriage be consummated by carnal copulation, one of the married persons pass over into religion. For it is not credible, that so learned and godly a Bishop, had either so suddenly forgot himself, or wittingly had published opinions so jarring and dissenting one from the other. Therefore there must some other meaning be sought of these rescripts of Innocentius.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
NOw, if any ask 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 do think, that the difference in them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, that the mind of this good Bishop, and the sense of the words do differ; which oft times falls out in the writings of Lawmakers, when as either they do use words not so fit for to express their meaning, or do omit some necessary particle, or exception, for to make the constitution plain, and entire; for otherwise it is not likely, that he who denieth, that the Pope may grant licence to a Monk, that he may have property of goods, or marry a wife; would affirm, that the Pope may dissolve the Sacrament of marriage, I mean Matrimony ratified and consummate. What is the matter then? I will speak what I think: I have observed, that Innocentius hath with that subtlety and fineness tempered his doctrine, that although he compare each marriage in this, that they are dissolved by the judgement of God only: yet, where he speaks of the power of the chief Bishop, and Vicar of jesus Christ, he conjoineth them together no more, nor makes mention of carnal matrimony, but only of spiritual: which not deemed to be separated by man, but by God himself; then when as the Bishop of Rome dissolveth the same, the necessity or commodity of the Church well considered, not out of human, but rather out of divine authority by translation, deposition or session; by which silence, and omission of carnal Matrimony, he doth sufficiently imply, that in the manner of separation, it doth differ, and is secretly excepted from the spiritual matrimony: that the Pontificial authority doth not extend to the dissolution of this, viz. the carnal, as if he had spoken more plainly in this manner. God hath reserved to his own judgement, the dissolution, as well of the carnal, as of the spiritual matrimony: notwithstanding, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ, and successor of Peter, the necessity or commodity of the Churches, etc. may dissolve them: which when he doth, not man but God doth separate, whose Person the Pope beareth in earth. Now, why the Pope may dissolve a spiritual marriage, and not a carnal also, the reason is plain and easy: because the spiritual matrimony of itself, and every way doth belong to the ordination, government, and economy of the Church, which Christ hath wholly commended to Peter and his successors. And therefore he must needs seem to have granted to them this power to dissolve spiritual marriage, seeing they are not able without it to execute, and discharge the office committed to them 
a I. ●. D. de iurisd. . And therefore whatsoever the Popes themselves, as Hierarches, that is spiritual Governors, 
L. Si itor. D. deseruit. l●. 3 § qui babet. D. de seruit. p●aed. rustic. cap. 5. the offic●ud. dole.  do dispose and decree of the several matters & persons of the Church, we must believe that God doth dispose and decree the same, who hath by name committed this dispensation, and procuration to them.  
But carnal matrimony was instituted, not for the ordination of the Church, but only for procreation of issue 
b Aug. li. 14. the civit. Dei. ca 18. Thom. 2. 2. q. 154. art. 2. : and for that cause it is said to be 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 soul, of Christ and the Church. And therefore there was no necessity to permit to Peter and his successors, the power to dissolve the same. They have enough to discern & judge, if it be a marriage, that they may know if it be a sacrament. Therefore, although the Pope may avail very much in the contracting of a marriage, viz by removing all impediments, which do arise out of the positive law, and ecclesiastical constitutions, and give order, that it may duly and rightly be contracted, which otherwise were neither lawful nor firm: 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 relax and dissolve the same. Neither doth it belong to the matter, that in Courts and judgements Ecclesiastical, we see often that separation is made of those persons, as have lived a long time together, under the conceit and show of marriage. For neither the Pope in that case, nor the judge delegated by the Pope's authority, doth dissolve any matrimony: but by his judgement declareth, that the matrimony, which indeed was contracted de fasto, or was falsely supposed to be a marriage, was no marriage at all: & enjoineth persons that are not lawfully coupled together, because without sin they may not entertain that society together, to depart one from an other, and to forbear their accustomed acquaintance. But this is not to dissolve Matrimony, or to separate persons lawfully joined, as concerning the bond of marriage. Whereby it is evident, that both Innocentius the Interpreter, who afterward was the FOUR Pope of that name, and also Ioh, Andr. (who is called the fountain and trumpet of the Canon law) hath very foolishly interpreted this part of the rescript of Innocentius the III. Whom God hath joined, let no man separate. Of their own authority say they: but man doth not separate carnal matrimony, when the Bishop or the Archdeacon doth dissolve it by the Constitutions of the Pope, but God himself, by whose authority those constitutions were made. As though Matrimony might be dissolved by the constitutions of the Pope? Indeed the constitutions of the Pope may hinder, that marriage may not be lawfully contracted between certain persons, and make a nullity in the law, because it was not contracted by the disposition of the same constitutions. But to distract and divide a marriage which is lawfully contracted, & to break or loose the band, no constitution either of Pope or church can do. Otherwise the Apostle in those words; 
d 1. Cor. 7.  The woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liveth, but if her husband do sleep she is free: I say he did ill to make mention of death only; if she may be free by some other means, viz. the Pope's constitutions, the marriage itself being dissolved. And now since these things are thus, it is time to return from this by-way, into which the unreasonable flattery, and ignorance of certain Doctors hath drawn us, into that path from whence we have digressed.   

CHAP. XXX.  
IT is now positively set down, and affirmed by the consent of all who can rightly judge of divine matters, that the Pope cannot make grace to any, of the natural and divine law; or, as we usually speak now a days, cannot dispense against the law of nature, and of God: and grant that that may be done without guilt, which God and nature have forbidden; or forbid lest that should be done which God hath expressly commanded to be done; and this not only the Divines, but also the Canonists of the better sort, do very earnestly maintain. Therefore this is a most grounded Axiom, whereon the weight of this whole disputation doth depend, and whereon is grounded the solution of that argument, which we have transcribed out of Bellarmine above in the beginning of the 25. Chapter. Surely, we do admit his proposition, which is, That it is necessary for a Pastor to have power about the Wolves, that he may drive them away, by all the means he is able. We admit also the Assumption. That the Wolves which destroy and waste the Church of God, are heretics. Where he concludeth in this manner. Ergo, If a Prince, of a sheep, or ram, turn Wolf; that is to say, of a Christian turn an heretic, the Pastor of the Church may drive him away by excommunication, and also may charge the people, that they do not follow him, and therefore may deprive him of dominion over his subjects. Surely, a very unsound collection. In stead whereof, in good Logic, should be put this conclusion: Ergo, If any Prince, of a sheep, or a ram, turn Wolf, the Pastor of the Church may drive him away by all the means he can. For this ariseth rightly out of the former Propositions, and therefore if we grant them it cannot be denied. Therefore all this is true; and we grant it all: but yet that which he annecteth and knitteth to this conclusion, is neither agreeable nor consequent, which is, that the Pastor may enjoin the people, etc. For to be able, or not to be able (posse) where the right and equity is disputed, aught to be understood not of the mere act, but of the power, which is lawfully permitted, and which agreeth with law and reason. So as in this case the Pope may be said to be able to do that, which he is able to do justly and honestly 
a L ●●●lins 15. D. de conduit. institut. . And so the matter is brought about, as we are enforced to inquire, 
Id posse.  whether the Pope by the plenitude of his Apostolic power, as they speak, can command & enjoin subjects, that they dare not be so bold as to obey the edicts, commandments, laws of their Prince under pain of excommunication. And if he shall de facto command the law, whether the Subjects are bound to obey any such commandment of the Pope. Surely, as I touched in the beginning; for the Affirmative, I could never in my life, either myself find a weighty argument, nor light upon any invented by an other: But the contrary proposition is strongly maintained, being built upon the foundation which we spoke of ere while; viz. That the Pope cannot in any sort dispense against a law of nature, and of God. Upon which ground is raised a most firm argument in my opinion, which is concluded in this form.  The Pope can command or dispense in nothing against the law Natural and Divine. 
But to command or dispense in the matter of subjection and obedience due to Princes, is against law natural and Divine.  Ergo, The Pope cannot command or dispense in the same: and by consequence cannot command the subjects, that they do not obey their temporal Prince, in that wherein the Prince is superior to him: and if he shall de facto command, it shall be lawful for the subjects to disobey him with safety and good conscience, as one that presumes to give laws without the compass of his territory or jurisdiction. 
Both the Propositions are most certain. Out of which the Conclusion is induced by a necessary consecution. He that shall weaken the force of this Argument, shall do me a very great pleasure, and make me beholding to him. For my part, that I may ingenuously confess my slender wit, I do not see in the world how it can be checked by any sound reason; for though it may be said, that obedience due to a superior may be restrained and hindered by him who is superior to that superior, and that the Pope who is Father of all Christians, is superior to all Kings and Princes Christian, in this, that he is Father, and therefore that he may of his own authority inhibit and restrain, that the subjects do not perform the reverence 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 superior may be diminished or restrained, or taken away by his commandment, who is superior to that superior: this is true only then, when he who forbiddeth it is superior 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 from the Lieutenant of his Army his command, and give charge that the Army obey him no more; and the Lieutenant may upon cause command that the soldier obey not the Tribune, nor the Tribune the Centurion, nor the Centurion the Decurion. For that all these in the same kind, I mean about military government & discipline, but one above an other, are superior according to the order of dignity. The same is true in the orders of the heavenly warfare, and of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy. But the obedience of the subjects towards the Prince, whereof we speak; consisteth in temporal matters, wherein the Popes themselves confess, that there is none above the Prince 
b Cap. per Venerabilem. qui fill. sunt legit. . But if none be above him in temporalities, surely it followeth, that there is none that may forbid or hinder the subjection and obedience which is due to him from his subjects in temporalities.  
I have showed above that these powers the spiritual and temporal, are so distinct, that neither, as it is such, doth command or serve the other. And that they are not to be regarded, who fly to their starting holes of distinctions and quirks, or rather those snares, of verbal captions, by these words, directè & indirectè. For it is most sure, that he hath a superior in temporalties, whom an other may in any sort command about temporal matters: or who in temporal causes may be judged directly or indirectly by an other. For judgement is given of one against his will 
c 1. inter stipulintem. 83. § ●. de verb. ubl. . And no man is judged but of his superior. Because an equal hath no command over an equal 
d 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 have authority and power over an other, directly or indirectly. For in those words, directè & indirectè, or if you please, directly, and obliquely, the difference is propounded to us only in the manner and way, or order of obtaining and coming by the former, but not in the liberty, force and effect of exercising, and executing the same. But good God? what can be said more unreasonably, or more contrary to the self than this: that a King hath no superior in temporalties; but is free from all bands of offences, nor is brought to punishment by any laws, which all antiquity, and the whole Church hath ever held: and again, that the Pope upon cause, or in some manner, that is to say, Indirectly, is superior to the King in temporalties, and may punish him with temporal punishments, that is, with loss 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 private man, what remaineth, but that he should undergo the last issue of this malice? and that is, either to provide for his safety by speedy flight, and so live a miserable life out of his Country; or if he do not in this manner provide for himself, be will forthwith be arraigned and convinced in public judgement, and then fall into the hands of a Gaoler, or an Executioner, and so there will be an end of him. Now there is in this power, which these good fellows do attribute indirectly to the Pope, a sovereign, free, and uncontrolled liberty to oppress, and to exercise tyranny, even over good and innocent Kings. For first of all they ordain, That it belongeth to the Pope to judge, if a King be to be deposed or not to be deposed. Secondly, that there is no appeal from his judgement, Because he alone judgeth all men, and is judged of no man. And so should it be in the power and pleasure of a malicious Pope, whensoever he conceiveth and burneth with any private hatred against any King, though he be never so good, to pretend some occasion or other of an indirect prerogative, that he may turn him out of his Kingdom, and reduce him to the estate of a private man. Which I would not speak in this place, (for I would not presage so hardly of the Governors of the holy See) but that all the world doth understand, that the same hath in former ages been practised by divers Popes. And it is not yet above the age of a good old man, since julius the II. did most wickedly and unjustly take from john King of Navarre, his Kingdom by Ferdinando of Arragon, by this very pretence of the Papal authority, the same john being not guilty, or convinced of any crime, but only because he favoured Lewes the French King. And if to do matters of this nature, is not to be superior in temporal affairs, I would gladly learn of these great Masters, what it is to be a superior. One thing I know (if this opinion of theirs be true) that the Pope is able to do more against Kings indirectly, then if he should have directly any command over them. Of which point we have spoken something before 
g Cap. 12. The answer of the people to the Pope commanding to disobey their King. .  
If therefore the Pope, de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, shall go about by his Decree or Bull, to forbid them to obey their King, may not all the people again, or some in the people's behalf, answer the Pope in this manner: Holy Father, You are not above our King in temporalties; and in that respect, you cannot hinder the temporal obedience which we perform unto him. Why do you forbid us to do that which God commands us to do? Is it because it is at your pleasure to interpret the will of God, comprehended in the divine Law, and in the Scriptures? But notwithstanding there must no such interpretation be made, as doth wholly make the law void, and utterly doth destroy and dissolve the commandment. If there be any thing doubtful or dark in the Law of God, we presently fly to the See of Peter, that is, to the See which you now do hold, to receive the interpretation of the truth: but that which is clear and manifest of itself, that needeth no light of any interpretation. Seeing then our Lord and Saviour commands us, to give to Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and to God those things which are Gods; and after by his Apostle, to be subject to Princes and Powers, and to be obedient to them: It is your part to declare unto us what things be Caesars, that is to say, what things belong to our King, and what be Gods; that both of them may have that which belongeth to them: and in this distinction of things we will willingly hear your voice. But when you say, I will have you give nothing to Caesar, or to your Prince, you contradict Christ, and therefore we hear not your voice. We do indeed confess, and profess also, that the exposition and interpretation of your Holiness should take place touching the observation of the divine Law: but we affirm absolutely, that that is not to be received, which maketh a scorn both of the Law of God, and of Nature, and bringeth the same into contempt. As for example, not to digress from the matter we have in hand: We are commanded to obey our Princes and Magistrates: in the observation of this commandment, we as obedient children, do willingly embrace your expositions and restraints, which do not quite destroy and extinguish the Commandment itself: as when you say, that from hence there grows no obligation to obey Kings, but in those matters which belong to their temporal jurisdiction: that all spiritual things are to be reserved to the Vicar of Christ, and to the Church. Also, when as you do advertise us, that we ought not to yield 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 us, that we do not in any sort obey our lawful Prince, or any of his charges, commandments, and laws: we may not obey this commandment of yours, because this is not to interpret the Commandment of God, which is granted to your Holiness, but utterly to abrogate and overthrow the same, which you cannot do by any means. Christ when he delivered to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, did not give him power 
h Felin. in cap. siquando, nu. 4. the rescript.  faciends de peccato non peccatum, that is to say, that which is sin, 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 Pope's commandment, if either it be unjust, or that many mischiefs or scandals are likely to ensue thereof, or else the disturbance and disquietness of the state of the Church and the Christian Commonwealth 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 be contrary 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 
k 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 less than ought the subjects of Kings to give ear 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 strait obligation of an oath? If you will us to withdraw our necks from the yoke and service of our King for this cause, because a spiritual good is hindered by our obedience, which is given to him by us: we answer, that this mischief, whatsoever it be, chanceth to fall out by some accident: for simply and of itself, evil cannot grow out of good, nor good out of evil. Now we have against our wills committed that accident, but we cannot hinder it. We discharge the duty due to our King: and according to patience in doing well, we seek glory honour, and immortality. 
m Rom. 2.  He if he abuse the obedience due unto him, and so great a benefit of God, he shall feel God to be a most sharp Judge and Revenger over him. But it is not lawful for us to forsake our duty, and to transgress the commandment of God, that even a very great good should follow thereby, lest we purchase to ourselves the damnation which the Apostle doth denounce. He that commands to obey our Kings, and to yield to Caesar those things which be Caesar's, putteth no distinction between good and evil Princes, and therefore ought not we to make any distinction. 
n L. de pretio. D. de put l. in ●em. act.  If, as B. Augustine teacheth, he who 
* See the admonition to the Reader.  hath vowed continence to God, aught by no means to offend, even with this recompense, that he believeth he may lawfully marry a wife, because she who desires to marry with him, hath promised that she will be a Christian, and so may purchase to Christ the soul of a woman, which lieth in the death of infidelity, who if she marry him, is ready to prove a Christian: What excuse shall we use to God, if we for the hope of some contingent good, should violate the religion and faith of our Oaths, which we have given to God and our King? For there is nothing more precious than a soul, for which our Lord and Saviour hath vouchsafed to die. And therefore if we may not sin to gain that to Christ, for what cause shall it be lawful for us to sin?  
Moreover, in that you say, that you do free us, and pronounce us free from the bond of this duty; that taketh not from us all scruple of conscience, but causeth us to hang in suspense, and the more to doubt of your authority; because we know that the commandment, wherein you promise to dispense with us, is ratified by the law of God and Nature; and that your Holiness can never, no not by virtue of the fullness of your power, dispense with any in the law of God and Nature. Therefore we will obey you in spiritual matters, and the King in temporal matters. God commands both: we will perform both. To be short, the comminations and threatenings, which you insert in your Mandate, we do wonder at surely, and in some part we fear them: but yet we are not altogether so fearful, as to be more afraid of them then we ought, or that we should be so terrified with them, as for fear of an unjust Excommunication, to deny to our King the just and lawful obedience which is due unto him. For although it be a common speech, that every Excommunication is to be feared; 
o Can. seutentia. can. qui iuslas 11. q. 3.  yet we ought to know, that an unjust Excommunication hurteth not him against whom it is denounced, but rather him by whom it is denounced. 
p Can. quomodo. can. illud 11. q. 3. can. certum 24. q. 3.  Therefore if you strike us with the edge of your Excommunication, because we will not at your commandment transgress the Commandment of God, and malum facere; your malediction and curse shallbe turned into a blessing, so as although we may seem to be bound outwardly, yet inwardly we remain as it were loosed and innocent.  
These and such like, are the reasons which have so settled the faith, as well of the Clergy as Nobility, and even of the whole Commons of France, toward their Kings, that they have resolutely withstood certain Popes, who have earnestly laboured to withdraw them from their loyalty, and obedience of their Kings; and have scorned the Pope's Bulls, and the sentence of deposition and deprivation from the kingdom: nay more, that they have not believed therefore, not without reason, that they are bound by any Ecclesiastic Censures, or may justly be enwrapped in any bonds of Anathema or Excommunication. For my part, surely I do not see what may justly be blamed in the former answer and defence of the people, unless it be imputed to them, and be sufficient to convince them of contumacy, because they do not by and by put in execution, without all delay, or examination of the equity, every commandment of the Pope, as though it were delivered even by the voice of God himself; which I think none in his right wits will judge. As for the other points, they are grounded on most firm demonstrations, most sound reasons and arguments, and reasons of divine and human law: viz. That it is the commandment of God, that honour and obedience should be yielded to Kings and Princes, no difference or distinction of good and wicked Princes in that point being propounded: That all the authority of the Pope consisteth in spiritual matters: That temporal affairs are left to secular Kings and Princes. That the Pope is not superior to Kings in temporal 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 subjects toward the Prince: and for that cause can neither absolve and discharge the subjects from that obligation, nor by just excommunication censure them, who do not obey him when he forbiddeth them to give lawful obedience to the Prince. All which points are severally and distinctly concluded before with authorities, testimonies, and arguments, which in my opinion cannot be answered; which notwithstanding I will leave to the judgement of the Church. For this is my mind and resolution, to submit myself and all mine to the censure and judgement of my most holy Mother.   

CHAP. XXXI.  
THose things which hitherto have been delivered by us, of the sovereign authority of Kings and Princes, and of the duty which is not to be denied to them in all things, which are not repugnant to God's Commandments, and to good manners: they are confirmed by the continual and solemn observation of the ancient Fathers, and the whole Church. For although they had great opportunit●e and means to pull down and to defect from their government wicked Christian Princes, by whom they had been wronged with private and public injuries, yet in no manner did they move any question against them touching their authority and rule: they denied them no parcel of human obsequy and obedience. Only they wisely, freely, and stoutly resisted their errors. And so holding the multitude in their duty towards God and their King, they observed both precepts, of fearing God, and honouring the King. And in very deed this is the principal remedy to preserve men's minds from slipping, and revoke them from error; and the most ready way and mean to reduce Kings and Princes, being furiously carried headlong with a frenticke heresy, from immanity and fierceness, to courtesy and mildness; from error to truth, from heresy to the faith: which course the ancient Fathers ever held in such like cases: which if the other Popes had followed in these latter ages, and had not arrogated to themselves that same insolent, and proud, and hateful domination over Kings and Emperors in temporal matters, it had gone better than at this time it doth with the Christian Commonwealth: and peradventure those heresies wherewith we are now sore pressed, might have been strangled in the very cradle.  
For even the issue and the event of business to this day, doth sufficiently teach, that the Popes do little or nothing avail, while they hold this high, slippery, and steep headlong way; but that they do more times raise troubles, schisms, and wars, by this mean in Christian Countries, then propagate the faith of Christ, or increase the profit, and enlarge the liberty of the Church. How unprofitable and hurtful to the Christian Commonwealth that assault was of Gregory the VII. upon Henry the IV. (which Gregory was the first of all the Popes that ever adventured this high course) we have sufficiently declared before. But who is ignorant how that same furious aggression and censure of Boniface the VIII. upon Philip the Fair, how little it profited, nay how much it hurt the Church? Likewise that of julius the II. against Lewes the XII. both Kings of France? of Clement the VII. and Paulus the III. against Henry the VIII. and of Pius Quintus against Elizabeth, Kings of England? Did not all these Princes, not only not acknowledge, but also contemn and laugh to scorn that same papal imperiousness, carried beyond the bounds of a spiritual jurisdiction, as mere arrogation, and an usurped domination? For the two last Popes, I dare be bold to affirm upon a clear ground, (for the matter is known to all the world) that they were the cause that Religion was lost in England: for that they took upon them to usurp and practise so odious and so large a jurisdiction over the Prince and people of that kingdom. Therefore how much more justly and wisely did Clement the VIII. who chose rather by a spiritual and fatherly charity, and a virtue agreeable to his name, to erect and establish the state of the French Kingdom, which began to stagger and sway in religion, then to contend by this same haughty and threatening authority of a temporal jurisdiction? because he knew that seldom or never it had happy issue.  
Out of doubt, for Kings and Princes, who glory not without cause, that they are beholding only to God, & the Sword for their Kingdoms and principalities, it is proper to them of a natural greatness of mind, to desire rather to die with honour, then to submit their sceptres to an others authority, and to acknowledge any judge & superior in temporal matters. And for that cause it seemeth not to be good for the Church, and Christian commonwealth, that the Pope should be invested in so great an authority over secular Princes, by reason of the manifold slaughters, miseries, and lamentable changes of Religion, and of all things beside, which dospring from thence. In which consideration, I cannot but wonder at the weak judgement of some men, who take themselves to be very wise, who to remove from the Pope the envy of so hateful a power, and to mitigate & allay the indignation of Kings whom it offendeth so much; are not afraid to give out, and to publish in books scattered abroad 
a Ju libello qui Gallicè inscribitur, Le veritè difendue country le pladoyé d● A●thonu Arnauld. , that this temporal prerogative of the Pope over Kings, is passing profitable even for the Kings themselves: because as they say, men sometimes are kept in compass, more through the fear of losing temporal, then of spiritual estates. An excellent reason surely, and worthy of them, who put no difference between Princes and private persons, and measure all with one foot. Surely, these men reach so far in understanding, that they understand nothing at all. As though that fear which falls upon private persons, is wont to possess also the minds of Princes: who hold themselves sufficiently protected and armed with the only authority of their government against all power and strength, and impression of any man. That reason ought only to be referred to them, whom the terror of temporal authority, and the severity of ordinary jurisdiction, do reclaim from offending with fear of punishment; for these kind of people (because they are sure that if they offend, they shall be chastised with some pecuniary or corporal mult) do for the most part abstain from doing hurt, not for conscience, but for the displeasure, and fear of the loss of temporal things. But Kings have not the same reason, but being placed on high above all human constitutions, and all positive laws, do give unto God only the account of their administration, whose punishment the longer it is in coming, the more severe it is like to be. Against private persons the execution of punishment is ready, which they cannot avoid without the mercy of the Prince. But what execution can be done against Princes, seeing they are not tied by any sanctions of human laws, 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 Latin and the Greek Interpreters do understand, as of all laws, so especially of penal, that the Prince although he do offend, may not be chastised by them, or as the Grecians do speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is the cause, that Kings being assured, both the greatness of their authority, and confidence of their Arms, fear not the loss of any temporal estate, seeing there is not one among a thousand of them so froward and friendless, but that he can find many friends to follow his party, by whose help and advice, whether he be to use sleight or strength, he supposeth he can maintain his Crown and sceptre. And for this very reason it is so far, that they will be terrified with these imperious and lording minitations, to take their Kingdoms away, that they are rather inflamed, and set on fire by them against all piety and religion. And it is very certain, that this temporal power, which the Pope some ages past doth challenge over all men, is so hateful to princes, that even they, who do much honour the seat of Peter, and do acknowledge the great power of his successors in spiritual causes, yet they cannot without indignation endure to hear the speech of this temporal 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 mean so great a command and power of reigning, should be evicted or wrested from them without the manifest word of God, or pregnant proof of reason; neither can they endure any reason of law, or indifferency of equity can admit.  
Wherefore wise men have ever been of this mind, that the Popes should with much more case procure the peace of the Church, if according to the custom of their ancestors, they would quietly rest themselves within the bounds and compass of the spiritual jurisdiction; and that according to their Apostolic charity they should humbly entreat wicked Kings, requesting, beseeching, protesting with prayers and tears, that they would return into the way, rather than that they should go about through this hateful intermination, to strip them of their temporal authority, as it were through force and fear (whereby they profit nothing or little,) to extort and wrest from them amendment of manners and faith. And if these Princes be so obstinate and stiff in their wicked courses, that they can be moved with no tears, nor bended with no prayers; the assistance of God must be implored, and they abandoned to his judgement. But now let us go forward.   

CHAP. XXXII.  
THe second argument which Bellarmine deducteth out of his fifth reason before related by us, is by him propounded in these words. A shepherd may shed and shut up the furious rams which destroy the flock: But a Prince is a furious ram, destroying the flock, when he is in faith a Catholic, but so wicked as he doth much hurt Religion and the Church, as if he should sell bishoprics, spoil Churches etc. Ergo, the Pastor of the Church may reclude him, (he should have rather said exclude him, for recludere is aperire,) or to reduce him into the rank of the sheep.  
Surely, we do admit this argument, and whatsoever beside is by necessary consecution inferred thereof: now no other thing can be inferred, but that it is lawful for the Pastor of the Church, (by which name we understand the Pope in this place) to expel an evil Prince out of the Lords fold, and to exclude him that he rest not in the Lords sheepecotes with the rest of the Christian flock: that is to say, by Ecxommunication to cast him out of the Communion of the Church & of the Saints, and to deprive him of all the benefits of regeneration in Christ, and to deliver him to Satan, until he make lawful satisfaction for his offence and contumacy. And this punishment is wholly spiritual and ecclesiastic, and the greatest of all other which the Church hath 
b Can. corripiantu● 24. q. 3. : which he cannot go beyond, no not against a private person: unless it be to go to the Prince civil, as being superior to the offender, and beseech him to punish the injury offered to the holy mother; who for that she is a nurse of the Church, aught to chastise with corporal and civil punishments the offenders and rebels to the same. But the Church wanteth this temporal aid, when as he is the sovereign Prince himself, who commits that for which he may be worthily excommunicate, because he hath no superior, & by no law can be challenged to punishment, being free and safe through the Majesty of his government. Therefore although the Pastor of the Church, or the Pope, may by Excommunication exclude him from the flock, and so deprive him of all his spiritual benefits: yet can he take away from him none of those things which he possesseth and enjoyeth by virtue of a temporal and human interest: because goods of that nature are not subject to Ecclesiastic, but to Politic laws, which are in the power of Kings. And as no Christian, whether Prince or private person, can avoid the Pope's judgement in spiritual Causes: so neither may any subject of what rank or place soever he be, decline the judgement of his King or Prince in temporal affairs: for in that the causes of Clergy persons are committed to other then to civil judges, that was granted them by the singular grace and privilege of Princes, whereas by the common law, Cleriques as well as Laiques are subject to the temporal authority of secular Princes. And this is grounded on that reason, which Bellarmine himself delivers, viz. That Clergy persons, besides that they are Clergy persons, are also Citizens, and certain parts of the common wealth politic. Hence it is, that under the best and holiest Christian Princes, all the causes of Clergy men, as well civil as criminal, so as they were not Ecclesiastic, were wont to be debated before civil and temporal Magistrates 
c Vide S. cap. 15. . Therefore the Clergy did owe to secular Princes this their liberty, which in this point they enjoy, as we have declared before in the 15. Chapter. Whereby I marvel that the same Bellarmine doth affirm that the Pope might simply by his own authority exempt Clergy men by the Canon Law, from the subjection of temporal Princes. For (that I may speak it with the reverence of so great a man,) it is as false as false may be. Because the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and interest: but it should deprive, if it should take away against their wills that temporal right and interest which Princes before they became Christians had over Clergy men. Again, seeing the Pope himself hath obtained this exemption of his own, by no other right, but by the bounty and grace of Princes (For as the adversaries confess, he was both de iure, and de facto, subject to heathen princes, as other Citizens) it is an absurd thing to say, that he could deliver others from the same subjection. Otherwise that might agree to him, which the wicked blaspheming jews did upbraid to our Saviour Christ, He hath saved others, himself he could not save.  
And in this point the authority of the Fathers in Counsels, could not be greater than the Popes. Therefore this place requireth that we also convince an other error which hath sprung & spread very wide out of the decrees of Counsels, not diligently and advisedly considered, and which reacheth at this day I know not how far, and to what persons: viz. That Counsels have freed Clergy men from the authority & jurisdiction of Magistrates. Which is as far from all truth as may be, for it is nowhere found in any Council, that the Fathers assumed to them so much authority, as to deprive secular Judges of their authority and jurisdiction over the Clergy, or in any sort forbid them to hear and determine the causes of Clergy men being brought before them, unless it were after that by the singular bounty of Divines, which began from justintanus, that privilege of Court was granted to Church men. For when as these grave Fathers themselves which were present and precedents in Counsels, were subject to temporal authority (as Saint Augustine teacheth in expositione cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom.) it could not be that they should by their proper authority exempt themselves or others from that subjection. Therefore we must understand that those ancient fathers of the church, amongst whom the Ecclesiastical discipline did flourish with much severity and sincerity (which at this day is too much neglected) used all the care and diligence that might be, that the Clergy should carry a light before the people, not only in doctrine, but also in integrity 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 counsels, that none of them should bring against another any civil or criminal complaint before a secular judge, but that either they should compose all their controversies among themselves by the arbitration of friends, or if they would not or could not, that at least they should end them by the judgement of the Bishop. And surely, they ordered their matters in this manner out of the same, or surely the very like advice which S. Paul in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians, gave the Christians, forbidding them, that they should not draw one an other before the judgement seats of infidel judges, and there contend about their differences (which we spoke of a little before:) I say out of the same advice these fathers ordained, that if any thing sell out among the Clergy, after the manner of men, which might be a scandal to the Laity (as are the faults which are committed of humane frailty) that the same might with more secrecy and closeness be amended before their proper Ordinaries, nor should not come to the ears of the rude and barbarous multitude, which oft times measureth the doctrine by the manners, and is accustomed either to disdain or to scorn and laugh at these manner of slips in the Clergy. And moreover, lest the Cleriques, who ought to be careful and diligent to maintain peace and concord, and both in word and deed to give example of charity and patience, should seem by their often haunting and frequenting of secular Courts, to show the way to all manner of strifes and contention.  
Then by these decrees of Councils, there is nothing detracted from the authority of the laics, but that they may hear the causes of the Clergy men. For the Fathers did not, neither indeed could they forbid, that secular judges should not judge and determine of Clergy men's causes, being brought before them; (for that had been to take from Princes and Magistrates that right and authority, which the law of Christ doth not permit them to do) but indeed they did forbid that one Clergy person should not draw an other before those kind of judges, appointing canonical or ecclesiastical punishments against them which did not obey. Now this they might appoint justly and lawfully without wrong or prejudice to any: even as a good Father that hath many children, may command his children, and also forbid them under a private and domestic punishment, that they do not contend before a judge about any controversies amongst themselves, but that they cease and lay down all quarrel and differences upon the judgement of their father or brethren: and by giving his children this charge, he doth not prejudice at all the authority of lawful judges. Even so the Fathers of the counsels have inhibited their sons, that is, the Clergy men, that they should maintain no action, nor question amongst themselves before secular judges, not by taking away from the Laiques their power to hear and decide of their causes, but by abridging the Clergy of their ancient liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do. And this is not to exempt the Clergy from the authority and jurisdiction of temporal Magistrates, but only to take a course, by which the Clergy having business with the Clergy, may easily attain their right without so much noise and stir in laymen's courts. 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 understood, this error hath sprung, that from thence the Reader may understand the truth of our discourse.  
The first then which decreed any thing touching this point, was the 3. council of Carthage, held the year of our Lord 397. at which S. Augustine was present, and subscribed the same. In the 9 can of that council it is thus written. Also we have ordained that whosoever Bishop, Priest and Deacon or Clerk, when as a crime is charged upon him in the Church, or a Civil controversy, shall be raised against him, if he leaving the Ecclesiastic judgement, shall desire to be cleared by the public judgements, although the sentence pass of his side, that he shall lose his place, and this in a criminal judgement. But in a Civil, that he foresee that which he hath won, if he: desire to hold his place still. For he that hath free liberty to choose his judges where he will, he doth show himself to be unworthy of the fellowship of his brethren, who conceiving meanly of the whole Church, sueth to the secular judgement for help. Whereas the Apostle commandeth that the causes of private Christians should be brought to the Church, and be there determined.  
Is there any word here, whereby it may be gathered by any probable reason, that the Council meant to exempt the Clergy from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrates? or doth declare that the laics are not competent judges for the Clergy? Nay it showeth the direct contrary: viz. that they do confess, that the secular judges may by good right hear and decide the causes of Clergy persons, and that they do not disallow their judgements, as given by an incompetent judge; but that they only endeavour this, to restrain the giddiness and forwardness of those clerics, that when as a cause hath already been begun to be debated in the Church, forsaking and contemning the Ecclesiastic judges, do submit themselves to the order and judgement of laics: in which case the Council doth not disallow the sentence given by a secular judge, nor pronounceth him to be no competent judge, but a penalty depriveth that Clerk of the fruit and benefit of such a sentence, by reason of his lewdness and disorder. Now in that the Fathers of that Council did at that time acknowledge the Civil Magistrates to be the competent judges of Clergy men; by that it may be understood sufficiently, that they restrained this their decree to that case, wherein a crime is raised upon a Clerk in the church, or a civil controversy set on foot against him. Therefore out of these cases, it was by this Canon lawful for the Clergy without offence to prosecute their suits in a civil court, and to debate their business before a secular judge.  
After followed the famous Council of Chalcedon, Ann. Dom 451. which also in the 9 Canon decreeth on this manner: If any Clergy person have business with a Clergy person, let him not forsake his proper Bishop, and run to temporal judgements: but first let the business be sifted by the proper Bishop, or at least by the counsel of the same Bishop; they shall receive judgement and order from them by whom both parties were content to be judged. If any shall do otherwise, he shall be subject to the Canonical consures. Observe how this Council directeth her speech to the Clergy, that they should not leave their own Bishops, to go to secular judges; but not to temporal Magistrates and judges, that they should not hear Clergy men coming to them; and after the cause debated, should pronounce sentence, & according to the course of law, compel them to perform the judgement. Therefore by this Canon there is nothing taken from the authority of the Laity. For those words of the Canon or Decree, Sedprius actio ventiletur apud proprium Fpiscopum, do sufficiently show, that the Fathers of the Council do only require, that all the causes of Clergy men be at the first hand examined by the Bishop: secondly, if there be cause, that they be carried to the examination of the temporal judge. For it is not likely or credibl, that that word, Primum, was idly and supper fluously set down by so many worthy and wise men: and so that Canon doth wholly accord with the Novel Constitution of justinian, 82. made in favour of the Clergy men: That Clergy men should first be convented before their own Bishops, and afterwards before Civil judges. Therefore the Civil jurisdiction of secular judges over the Clergy is not weakened by this Canon, but rather confirmed.  
Likewise in the Council of Agatha, under King Alaricke. Ann. Dom. 506. the Fathers which allembled in the same, decreed Can. 32 That no Clergy man should presume to molest any man before a secular judge, if the Bishop did not give him licence. The which Canon Gratian transferred into his Decre●um, not without very foul dealing, both changing the reading, and wresting the sense; for whereas the Council had said, Clericus ne quenquam praesumat, etc. that he hath drawn to his own opinion, depraved in this manner: Clericum nullus praesumat apud s●cularem judicem Episcopo non permittente, pulsare: that is, Let no man presume to molest a Clergy man before a Secular judge, etc. That the prohibition may include the Laics also, that they should not convent a Clergy man before a Secular judge; whereas it is made only for Clergy men, without any mention at all of the Laity. Besides, the second part of that Canon doth manifestly show, that the Council is thus far offended with the laics which draw the Clergy before Secular judgements, and propoundeth Ecclesiastical punishments against them, if so be they shall do 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 Clergy men, (by moving of suits before Secular judges) and shall be convicted let him be restrained from entrance into the Church, and from the Communion of the Catholics, unless he shall worthily repent. but Gratian hath corrupted not only the sentence of this Council, 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 marvel, that the Canonists, who did only read the gatherings of Gratianus, being deceived by this false reading, have fallen into this error, which we now repichend. But it is a marvel that Bedarmine in both places should follow the coriupt reading of Gratianus, and not rather the true and natural section of the Authors themselves, in his Controucisies, Lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 28.  
But in the first Council of Matiscum, which was held under King Gu●tramnus. An. Dom. 576. Can. 8. is written in this manner: That no Clericke presume, in what place soever, to accuse any other brother of the Clergy, or draw him to plead his cause before a Secular judge but let all matters of the Clergy be determined in the presence either of the proper Bishop, or Priest, or Arch deacon.  
And in the third Council of Toletum, which was celebrated Ann Dom. 589. In the reign of King Reccaredus in the 13. Can there is a decree touching Clergy men thus: The continual misgovernment, and accustomed presumption of liberty, hath so far opened the way to unlawful attempts, that clerics leaving their Bishops, do draw their fellow Clerks to public judgements. Therefore we ordain, that the like presumption be attempted no more. If any shall presume to do it, let him lose his cause, and be banished from the Communion.  
These are the solemn, and almost the sole decrees of the Canons, whereon they ground their error, who falsely supposed that Counsels could, or in fact did exempt the Clergy from the power of the Laity: whom the Canons themselves notwithstanding do so evidently convince, that we need not bring any thing else besides them, for to repress that conceit of theirs. And these matters have been thus discoursed by me, not with that mind and intent, to rip up the privileges of the Clergy, or because I either envy that they enjoy them, or wish that they were taken from them. They who know me, know very well in what account I have ever had, and have Ecclesiastical persons. I do honour the Priests of God, as my parents, and esteem them worthy all honour: but as an humble child I advise them, that they be not unthankful, nor disdain their benefactors, from whom they have received so many privileges. They are bound to reverence and honour their temporal Princes, as their Patrons, and Protectors, and procurers of their liberty; and not (as many of them at this day use) to deny that they are beholding to Princes for those favours, but to ascribe all their liberties, and exemptions, and immunities, to Pontificial and Canonical Constitutions; which is the most unthankful part which can proceed from unthankful minds. For what temporal liberty soever they have, they have received the same, not from the Popes, but from secular Princes; nor from the Canons, but from the Laws.   

CHAP. XXXIII.  
I Will say more, and I will speak the truth, although peradventure it purchase me hatred of them to whom all things seem hateful, which are never so little against their humour and disposition. Therefore I will speak, and I will speak a great word, which peradventure either no man hitherto hath remembered, or if any have, he hath not at the least put any in mind as he ought, whom it concerned to know the same. And that is, that the Clergy thorough the whole world, of what order or degree soever they be, are not to this day in any manner exempt and freed from the temporal authority of secular Princes, in whose Kingdoms and countries they live; but are subject to them in no other manner than other Citizens in all things which belong to civil and temporal administration and jurisdiction: and that the same Princes have power of life and death over them, as well as over their other subjects; and therefore that the Prince (I speak of him who acknowledgeth no superior in temporal affairs) may either of his clemency forgive, or punish according to the Law, a Clergy man, committing any fault whatsoever, so the fault be not merely Ecclesiastical. This although it seem hard, and half a paradox, to them who being possessed with the error of the contrary opinion, do think that they live within the authority and jurisdiction of the Pope only, and that they are not bound to any Constitutions of human laws beside: notwithstanding I shall bring to pass in few words, that they may plainly understand, that there is nothing more true than this proposition of mine, so as they be only willing to open their ears to ●eare the true reason thereof with indifferency. The truth thereof dependeth of those things which we have set down and proved before, out of the judgement of the Divines of the best note, and shall presently be demonstrated by necessary and evident conclusion drawn from thence. First of all therefore, this is set down, and granted, and also confirmed with most firm reasons and testmonies, that all, both clerics and laics, were in the power and authority of Kings and Emperors, so long as the Church served under heathen Princes. And this is the ground of our demonstration; with which I will iorne that which hath in like manner been set down and granted: that is to say, That the Law of Christ deprsueth no man of his right and interest, because he came not to break the Law, but to fulfil the Law. And therefore after that Princes were brought to the faith, it is certain that all Clergy men continued in the same order and rank, as far as concerned temporal subjection, wherein they were before, when their Princes lived in their infidelity: because the Law of Christ depriveth no man of his particular interest, as hath been said. And in that regard, privileges and exemptions were granted to the Clergy, which they should not have needed at all, if the Clergy had not remained, and that by absolute right, as before, under the authority and jurisdiction of Princes. These things are so clear and plain, and so witnessed and proved by so many testimonies and monuments, that it may be thought a needless pains, to remember them in this place, or to add any thing to them. Therefore let us see that which followeth: I mean, let us see how our former sentence doth grow out of these principles, by a manifest demonstration and necessary conclusion. It is in no place recorded by any Writer, that the Princes who have endowed the Clergy with these privileges and exemptions, did set them so free from themselves, that they should not be further subject unto them, nor acknowledge their Majesty, or obey their Commandment. Read those things which are written of those privileges: you shall not find the least testimony of so great immunity amongst them all. They only granted to the Clergy, that they should not be convented before secular Magistrates, but before their proper Bishops, and Ecclesiastical judges. Now this is not to exempt the Clergy from the authority of the Princes themselves, or to offer prejudice to their jurisdiction and authority, if they shall please at any time to take knowledge of Clergy men's causes, in cases which are not merely spiritual. Nay Princes could not, nor at this day cannot grant to the Clergy, living in their kingdoms, that liberty and immunity, that they should not be subject to them in their temporal authority, and when they offend, be judged and punished by them, but that they must by the same act renounce and abandon their principality and government. For it is a property inseparable to Princes, to have power to correct offenders, and lawfully to govern all the members of the Commonwealth, I mean, all his Citizens and subjects, with punishing and rewarding them. And as in a natural body, all the members are subject to the head, and are governed and directed by it, so as it must needs seem a monstrous body, where are seen superfluous members, and such as have no dependency of the head: even so in this politic body, it is very necessary that all the members should be subject to the Prince, as to the head, and be governed by him, that is, to receive reward or punishment from him, according as each of them deserve in the state. But the clerics (as the adversaries confess) 
a Bellarm. l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28.  besides that they are clerics, are also Citizens, and certain parts of the civil Commonwealth: which is true, and in that regard they are reckoned amongst the orders of the kingdom, and obtain the first place. Therefore as Citizens, and parts of the civil Commonwealth, they are subject to the Prince; neither can they, although the Prince would, but be subject 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 convented for any cause whatsoever, (so it be not merely spiritual) may avoid the Palace of the sovereign Prince, or of him to whom the Prince, upon certain knowledge, hath specially committed the determination and decision thereof. For in that Princes do very seldom hear the causes of the Clergy, that argueth want not of power, but of disposition. Hence is it, I mean out of this temporal authority of secular Princes over the Clergy, that in our time Charles the V. being Emperor, caused Hermannus Archbishop of Colony to appear before him, to clear himself of the crimes which the Clergy and the University said against him: 
b 〈…〉 1545.  and that in many places the Princes have reserved to themselves certain offences of the Clergy to be specially punished, and do commit the same to the knowledge and judicature of their officers: as are those crimes which are called Privilegiate in France, as of Treason, bearing of Arms, counterfeit money, peace broken, and the like: neither are we to think that hereby any injury is done to the Clergy, or that the Ecclesiastical liberty is in any manner hindered or diminished. Many have Ecclesiastical liberty in their mouths, 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. 
c 〈◊〉 cap. 〈◊〉.   
Seeing these things stand thus, every man I think may see, that all the immunity of Clergy men, as well for their persons, as for their causes and goods, have 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 prove how that the Pope and Counsels did simply exempt clerics from the temporal jurisdiction: viz. 
d Di●t lib ●. cap. 28. 〈…〉.  That the Imperial Law ought to yield to the Canon Law: that is not generally true, but then only, when the Canon Law is ordained and exacted of matters merely spiritual and Ecclesiastic: but the subjection or immunity of Clergy men in civil affairs is not a matter merely spiritual and Ecclesiastical, but rather civil and temporal: in which cases the sacred Canons do not disdain to come after the civil Laws. 
e 〈…〉.  Neither is there any more force in that which he brings in after, That the Pope may command the Emperor over those things which belong to the authority of the Church. As if he should say, that the Pope may constrain the Emperor to set and dismiss the Clergy free out of his power, because the liberty of the Clergy belongeth to the authority of the Church. For even by this we may discern that this is false, that the Church never had greater authority than she had then, when all the Clergy did in temporal subjection obey Christian Princes, and Officers of Princes. Neither was this exemption and immunity granted to the Clergy to increase the authority of the Church, for that was no less before, but to set them free from vexation and trouble which often times the rigour and severity of secular judgements did bring.  
Hence arose that question, whether it were lawful for Princes, every one within his territories, without any injury to the church, in some case to revoke the privilege of the exemption of the Clergy, from the intermeddling of secular judges, and to reduce the whole business 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 me a strange question, and of a hard deliberation to resolve. For although it have been propounded by divers, yet hath not been handled by any according to the worth of the subject.  
The movers of this question were moved by the common and usual reason of taking Privileges away, which the Pope himself, and all Princes are accustomed to observe; that is, if either they begin to be hurtful to the Commonwealth, or the cause hath failed, and is gone, for which they were granted at the first, or the privileged Persons themselves do abuse them to a wicked and unlawful end. And they said indeed that the cause of granting this exemption, doth continue, and is like to continue for ever; that is to say, the reverence which all men ought to exhibit to that kind of men; but that the abuse thereof was so frequent in many places, to the great scandal of the whole Ecclesiastical order, that that benefit may seem deservedly to be taken from them. Thus much they. But we will more largely and plentifully decide this matter in our books the corruption saculi, if God give me life and strength.   

CHAP. XXXIIII.  
NOw therefore I return to the argument, which is propounded in the beginning of the 32. Chapter: and I answer, that it nothing belongs to the taking away of any temporal goods whatsoever, much less of a kingdom. For it is as certain as certain may be, that Excommunication, by which only froward & stubborn Christians are separated & excluded from the fellowship of the faithful, and communion of the Church, doth take from no body their inheritance, and temporal goods. Unless it proceed from such a cause, which the Prince hath by his laws, especially ordained to be punished with the publication or loss of goods. In which case, not the Pope, but the Prince, not the excommunication, but the constitution of the civil law, doth take goods away from the person excommunicate. The Pope surely cannot take any Patrimonial right, no not from a Clergy man, though he be excommunicated and deposed, or degraded by himself. 
a Cap. cum ● non ab homine. de iudic.  And indeed the case were very hard of Christian people, if so be that a person excommunicate should forfeit 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 seized into the King's hands, do scarce ever return again to the true owner. And so excommunication, which was appointed for a remedy and a medicine to help, should prove a mischievous disease to overthrow. For that the person excommunicate, although he shall be restored again into his former estate of Grace, by washing his fault away with due repentance, should never or very hardly recover his goods again, being once returned into the Fiske or Exchequer, & peradventure wasted or given away to some body, etc.  
Therefore the censures Ecclesiastical, amongst which Excommunication is the most grievous, do work upon the souls, not upon the goods and estates of the Laity: as on the contrary, the bodies of men, and not their souls are afflicted with temporal punishments. Seeing therefore that offenders are punished with the loss of their goods by the auhority, not of the Pope, but of the Prince: Seeing I say, it is not the Pope, that taketh temporal goods from any private person, by the power of his Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and by the force and virtue of excommunication, or other censure, although the same be just and grievous; but the civil Prince only, who to pleasure the Church, and to prosecute the wrong done unto her, is accustomed by laws enacted of himself, to ordain sometime one punishment, sometime an other, at his own pleasure, upon the contemners of the Church; how then can it be, that the Pope can by his sole Pontificial, and Ecclesiastic authority take away from the Prince himself, kingdom, principality, jurisdiction, authority, and all dominion; who hath no judge over him in temporal matters, and is not subject to any civil pains? Is it so sure and certain, that the Pope hath given him by the law of God more authority over Princes, then over private persons? or are Princes tied to live in harder terms in the world, then private persons, so as the Church may practise that upon a Prince, which she cannot do upon a private man?  
But that the truth of this matter may as yet appear more plainly by an other mean, I demand of these men, if the Pope have greater authority over Kings and Emperors at this day, than he had in times past, before that he was advanced to a temporal honour by the bounty of Constantine and other Princes? or that his authority at this present is only like equal altogether: I mean that which Christ conferred upon Peter, & which no mortal man can either straighten or enlarge, and which he shall retain never the less, although he should lose all temporal principality and government? And if he have greater authority, whence I pray you should he have it: from God or from men? surely, neither of both can be affirmed without a manifest us truth. For will any man ever say, that is in his right wits, that any new authority was given of God to the Pope over Christian Kings and Princes, from the time that he began to reign, and to exercise a civil government in certain places, and to show himself in men's eyes both with a Crown and Mitre on his head? or if he should say it, were he able to make it good by any reason or authority? much less hath any such authority accrued to him from men, because as it is commonly said, Actus agentium non operantur ultra ipsorum voluntatem 
b L. non omnis 19 D●de reb. ●●ed .  
And although Christian Kings and Emperors, who have and do submit their necks in spiritual causes to the Vicar of Christ, (such as only profess the orthodoxal faith) yet none of them all passed into the temporal jurisdiction and authority of the Pope; none of them, but reserved to himself free and untouched his secular jurisdiction. But if peradventure it be found that any hath done otherwise, the same is to be reckoned as an exception, by which the rule in non exceptis, is more strongly confirmed. Out of this foundation, which is laid upon most certain reason, a very good argument may be framed in this manner:  

The Pope hath no greater authority over Christian Princes temporal, than he had before he was a temporal Prince himself.  
But before he was a ten porall Prince, he had no temporal authority over them any way.  
Ergo, Neither hath he now any over them.   
The truth of the Proposition is so plain, that I need not underset it with other arguments: but the Aslumption is proved thus:  

No inferior and subject hath authority over his superior and Lord, that he may judge him in that wherein he is subject.  
But the Pope before he was a temporal Prince, was inferior and subject to Kings and Emperors, as concerning temporal matters.  
Ergo, he had no temporal authority over them, that he might judge them in temporalties.   
The proposition also of this Sullogisme is out of all question, seeing no man can be judged but by his superior: a superior I mean in that very point, whereof the judgement is made. For as we have often said, Par in parem non habet imperium. And in nature it cannot be, that one and the same person should be both inferior & superior; in the same kind of authority, in respect of one and the same matter, no more than that the same man should be Father and Son in respect of one and the same. And the same reason doth Bellarmine use to prove that the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive sentence of Counsels 
c Lib. 1. de Conciljs c●. 18. . The Assumption is confessed by the adversaries, when as they affirm, and clearly confirm by reasons, That the exception, (unless you will say, exemption) of Cleriques in civil causes, aswell concerning their persons, as Gods, was brought or by the law of man 
d Bell. b. 1. de Cler. cap. ult. . For, (as Augustine witnesseth) human laws be the laws of Emperors, because God hath distributed to mankind the human laws themselves by the Emperors and Kings of the world. Therefore the Clergy have from Emperors and Kings whatsoever exemption and immunity it is, which now they enjoy all the world over in civil causes, as we showed in the last Chapter before. And that even of their mere and free bounty; for they could not be enforced in any sort by the Church, to grant the Clergy those privileges, seeing it is not found to be expressed & provided by no law of God. And the law of Christ depriveth no man of his proper right & interest, as themselves confess, & we have often signified. And therefore as their own learning carrieth; Bishops ought to be subject to Kings in temporalties, and Kings to Bishops in spiritualties. By all this discourse it followeth, that Clergy men were bound by the common law of other Citizens in civil and temporal matters, and were alike subject to the authority of secular judges, as well as the other inhabitants of the Cities, before that they were by godly Princes endued with these Privileges, of exemptions: and many holy Popes have honestly confessed, that in this case there is no difference between the Bishop of Rome or the Pope, and other Clergy persons. Therefore that which might be done, let us suppose it was done, that is, that the Pope being as yet invested in no temporal principality, or privilege, doth live under the government of an other prince, as his fellow Bishops, and Brethren in France, Spain and Brittany, and in other kingdoms do. Would it not be evinced by the necessity of the former argument, that he cannot judge and punish Princes in temporalties, to whom he is temporally subject? Therefore he hath either purchased a greater authority over Kings and Emperors, than he had before, through the exemptions and privileges granted even by them; or else he cannot as yet judge them in temporalties.  
But if any be so fond perhaps to say, that the Pope hath always had this authority from the first beginning of the Church, viz. to judge and depose evil princes, but through the injury of the times he hath by accident been hindered, that he could not exercise it: so long as he was subject to them touching the temporalties: But now, after that he hath withdrawn his neck from the temporal yoke of princes, & made himself a temporal princes, there is nothing to hinder, but that he may freely put in ure that jurisdiction. I say if any shall use this vain ostentation, I must answer him nothing else, but that the things he speaketh are not only false, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unpossible: setting those things down which the adversaries confess, and which is most true, that is to say, that the Popes before such time, as they were by godly Princes clearly exempted from temporal jurisdiction, were subject to them both de iure and de facto. For it is impossible that at that time they should have that power; for that it is not competent, but by right of superiority. Now it implieth a contradiction, that the Pope was by right superior, and by right inferior, at the same time, & in the same kind of authority, in respect of one and the same; and the natural order of things doth not permit that the inferior, or subject should command his superior and Ruler. Seeing therefore it is both absurd and impious to imagine that our Saviour Christ, qui non venit solvere legem sed adimplere; should constitute and appoint any thing against the law of nature, and the most holy rule of life, they must needs be in a great error, who affirm that this sovereign authority, whereof we speak, was by Christ conferred on Peter, and in his person on the rest of the Bishops who succeeded him, when as they bring nothing to prove the same but certain far fetched reasons, and full weak, patched up together; of similitudes, comparisons, allegories, and such like stuff, as you may see by that which we have refuted. All which are to be rejected and little esteemed, when as by the position and granting of them, some absurdity doth follow, as in this point, or when as more probable and strong reasons grounded upon the authority of Scriptures and Fathers do maintain the contrary opinion.  
The last argument of Bellarmine is behind, in the refutation whereof we shall not need to take much pains. The third argument (saith he) is this: A Shepherd may and ought so to feed his sheep, as is convenient for them. Ergo, the Pope may, and aught, command Christians those things, and enforce them to these things, to which every one of them in his condition is bound: that is, constrain every one to serve God in that manner, wherein they ought according to their state and condition. But Kings ought to serve God by defending of the Church, and by punishing heretics and schismatics. Therefore he may and aught to command Kings that they do it, and unless they do it, to enforce them by excommunication, and other convenient means.  
Surely I see not what is contained in this argument, which either confirms or infirmes the temporal authority of the Pope. For the beginning thereof is necessarily to be understood of spiritual food. Now the Pope's revenues, although they be great, would not suffice to feed all sheep with corporal pasture; and so the end also and conclusion must be understood of spiritual coercion and compulsion: for he saith, to enforce by Excommunication, and other convenient means, (meaning) Ecclesiastical For the Pope is an Ecclesiastic, not a temporal Shepherd, but only so far as at this day he hath temporal rule in certain places. Therefore we grant the whole argument and freely confess and profess, that the Pope by his spiritual authority may command all Princes, and enjoin them to do those things which appertain to their safety and theirs; and unless they do it, also to enforce by excommunication, and other convenient means. But the convenient means are all spiritual means, and not temporal, unless they be practised by a temporal Magistrate. The which point john Driedo observing in his books of Christian liberty, after that he had declared that these two authorities and jurisdictions were by the Law of God distinct in the Church, and that all secular authority in spiritual matters was subject to the Pope's authority, so as the Pope, in regard of his pastoral charge, hath authority over a Christian Emperor, even as a spiritual Father over a son, and as a Shepherd over his sheep; that he may judge and correct him, if he should fall into heresy, or deny public justice to the poor and oppressed, or should enact Laws to the prejudice of the Christian faith. (all which things we also affirm) he setteth down no other pain or punishment against Emperors so offending, but excommunication alone, because he knew that the Pope's authority and jurisdiction was content with spiritual punishments, and could go no further, unless she would run out in the borders of temporal authority, and invade a foreign jurisdiction, which by the Law of God is distinct and separate from his. Now this is no convenient mean, which the adversaries use, of deposing ill Princes from their government; but rather of all other means inconvenient: both for that it hath scarce ever succeeded happily to the Popes themselves, or the Church, but is accustomed to bring into the Church and Christian Common wealth, infinite calamities, by intestine discords, schisms, and civil wars: as also, because in respect of the Pope, to whom spiritual matters only are committed, such a mean must needs seem very strange, and to proceed from an usurped authority. And therefore it is to be judged 
i L. Fitius 15. D de cond instit. l. 4. §. condemnatum. D. dereiudic.  neither convenient, nor just, nor possible. Hitherto have I weighed in the balance of naked and open truth, according to the slenderness of my wit, all the reasons, and from those reasons the arguments, whereby Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove that the Pope hath supreme authority over secular Princes, indirect, indirectly.   

CHAP. XXXV.  
I Thought in the beginning, when I began this Work, that it was sufficient, diligently to examine and discuss the reasons which this learned man Bellarmine doth use; but for that he sends us 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 find many of those things which I have delivered; I think I shall not do amiss, if I shall bring into light those arguments of Sanders which are behind, lest the curious and observant of our writings, should complain, that any reason of the contrary side hath been omitted; and also should imagine, that it is of purpose omitted, because it is so strong, that it cannot be answered. All the world doth know, especially they who have with any care and attention perused Sanders his books, that he spared no pains, and above all other men gathered together most arguments to prove that the Pope was invested in this temporal authority over all Christians, whereof we speak. But yet it is very likely, that that man was so far blinded, either with a bitter hatred which he bore against Queen ELIZABETH, being banished out of her Kingdom; or with too great affection towards Pope Pius V. to whom he was many ways bound; or else with some other, I know not what smoke of humour and passion, that he did not see, how that for certain and sound arguments, he used many shows, which were not only false and far fetched, but even dissenting from common sense, and the judgement of natural reason. Therefore will I transcribe into this place, very compendiously, the rest of his arguments, which as I think were of purpose omitted by Bellarmine.  
Argument. 1 Therefore he deduceth one from this, that Saul's kingdom was taken from him, for that he had not observed the Commandments of the Lord, which were delivered him by the ministery of Samuel; from whence he collecteth thus: Therefore seeing after the holy Ghost sent from heaven, the spiritual authority cannot be less now in the Church of Christ, than it was before in the Synagogue; we must also now confess, that the King who hath despised to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope, may be so deprived of the right of his Kingdom, as that another in the mean time may be anointed by the same Pope, and that from that day he is truly King, whom the Pope hath rightly anointed, or otherwise consecrated, and not he who being armed with troops of servants doth usurp the Kingdom.  
Argument. 2 Another also from the same party: That Ahias the Silonite, when Solomon was yet living, foretold, that jeroboam should be ruler of twelve Tribes: 
a 3. Reg. 11.  whereof, saith he, it is conceived, that either a whole Kingdom, or some part, may be taken away by the spiritual authority 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 duty it is so to tender the health of souls, that they suffer not, by the disobedience and tyranny of a wicked King, people of an infinite multitude to be forced and haled to schism and heresy.  
Argument. 3 The third from this, That Elias anointed Asael King over Syria, and jehu King over Israel, and anointed Eliseus to be a Prophet for himself, that he that escaped the hands of Asael, him should jehu kill; and him that had escaped the hands of jehu, should Eliseus kill. By which figure, saith he, what other thing was signified, then that many Magistrates were for this end raised and set up in the Church of God, that what was not executed by one of them, might be executed by the other: of which powers, the last and most principal 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 avoid, although he had escaped the sword of Asael and jehu: so the censure of the spiritual power can by no means be shunned, although a man escape the sword of the secular power. For the spiritual power doth not use a corporal or visible sword, which may be hindered by certain means, but useth the sword of the spirit, which passeth thorough all places, and pierceth even to the very soul of him whom it striketh.  
To these he knitteth afterward for an other argument the story of Elias, weary much interlaced with divers observations and allegories, devised by himself, to show that the material sword doth obey the spiritual; and that not only the Pope, but even other Pastors of the Church, have authority as well over body and goods, as over the souls of all Christians; which no sober man before him did ever so much as dream of. But with what unhandsomeness, and incongruence he 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 spirit, that is to say, by his prayers commanded the fire to fall from heaven, and to destroy those fifty, who despising the authority of the Prophets, said unto him in the name of an earthly power; Man of God, the King hath commanded thee to descend, 
c 4. Reg. 1.  etc. and in respect of the earthly power contemned that spiritual power, which Elias was endued with all. And in scorn saluted him, Homo Dei, man of God: And in this manner he goeth forward thus. Could no● Elias at whose call fire deseended from heaven, and devoured the fifty men, say to some Prince and Magistrate if he had been present: Sir, because these soldiers do contemn me, and in me God, whose Prophet I am, run upon them, and kill them? or could not an earthly sword have executed the same office, which the fire from heaven did perform? If fire, qu●th he, be the more noble element, than the earth, yea, or then the metals which are digged out of the earth, I see not but that he who called fire from heaven, to satisfy his commandment, might not much more have bidden the Magistrate, who beareth the sword to draw out his sword for him against any King in the world whatsoever For which opinion of his, this firmament or strength only is set down by him: That it skills not much amongst wise men, what is done by those things which are alike in moment and weight. I will not here add the fourth & fifth argument, which he useth out of the sacred histories, touching Ozia, 
d 〈◊〉 ●eg. 15. 2. Patal. ●6.  and Athalia, 
e 4. Reg. 1●. 2. Patal. 23.  because Bellarmine hath referred them among the examples whereon we must deal in their place. But these are those Paraleipomena, to which Bellarmine doth remit us, and which it is no wonder that he (who is both a subtle and sharp disputer, and a vehement Orator) did only lightly report, but did not transfer into his own work: seeing they do abound with so many and notorious faults, that a man would think they were written not by a Divine, and a man exercised in the Scriptures, but by some profane Smatterer, abusing intemperately Divinity 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 subject in question.   

CHAP. XXXVI.  
First then, Sanders is mistaken, and is very far 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 business was commanded, denounced, and in the issue accomplished and executed by the extraordinary judgement and commandment of God, from whom is all reign and power, without any ordinary jurisdiction of the Priests, or of the Synagogue: whereby it is clear, 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 confess that which is the truth, that the spiritual power of the Church of Christ is no less, yea that it is fair more, then of the Synagogue: yet therefore, I mean out of the comparison of the power & authority of each Church, it doth not follow, that the Pope may deprive a King neglecting or contemning the Commandments of God, of the right of his Kingdom, & install another in his place, because the Synagogue was never endued with that power. For it is nowhere read in the Old Testament, that the Synagogue of the jews, or the H●●● Priest thereof for the time, did abrogate the Kingdom from any lawful King of Israel of judaea, being never so wicke●, distnate, and civil; or deprived him of the ●ight o● the Kingdom, as he saith, and substituted another in his place. Whence it falls out, that no argument from thence, nor no example may be drawn in the new Law.  
I let pass, that Samuel, although he were a great Prophet, yet he was not the chief Priest, nay not a Priest at all, but only a Levite, 
a 〈…〉.  who therefore could do nothing against Saul by an ordinary power of spiritual jurisdiction, much less by the authority of a secular judgement, because he had publicly laid that down before, when the people demanded a King. Therefore Samuel in the execution of this business, did only perform a bare ministery, almost against his will, and striving both with prayers and tears against the same: and having received a special charge, he discharged an extraordinary embassy, being sent from the Lord as the Messenger of his divine judgement. And that appeareth by this, that when he came to the King, he said, Give me leave, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath spoken to me by night. Therefore he may forbear this argument, which is to small purpose drawn from the extraordinary ministry of Samuel and the rejection of Saul, in regard that the ordinary authority of the Christian Church or Pope, hath no comparison or proportion, no conveniency or similitude with the same. God presently rejected Saul, and took the Kingdom from his posterity: but he suffered other Kings, who seemed to be much more wicked than Saul, to reign over his people, and to convey the Kingdom to their children. So hath it seemed good in his eyes. God the Lord of revenge hath done freely, 
b 〈…〉.  and he hath done all whatsoever he would: 
c 〈…〉.  neither is any other reason to belong it. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth Neither may any man say unto him, 
d 〈…〉.  Why hast thou made me thus? Must we believe the same of the Church, or of the Pope? They haveth it certain limits and bounds, which they cannot pass. The Church is governed or ought to be governed by Laws saith Ioh de 〈…〉. 
e 〈…〉  And therefore it is not permitted neither to the Church, nor to the Ruler thereof the Pope, by an absolute liberty, and after the manner of God to determine of all kingdoms and businesses, and to dispose of all things at their pleasure. That only is lawful for them, which is comprehended in the holy writings or traditions of the Apostles, teaching their authority. Which seeing it is so, there is none that hath any skill in reasoning, but may plainly see, that the argument derived from those things which Samuel did, can by no means be concluded to establish the Pope's authority: unless it be deduced either from the ordinary power of the Synagogue (wherein notwithstanding Samuel was not the chief) to the ordinary authority of the Christian Church, or from the extraordinary ministery of Samuel, to the extraordinary ministery likewise of the Pope: whereof the former, from the Synagogue to the Church, although it may be rightly concluded in form as they say, yet it cometh short for the purpose, because it offendeth in matter; because the Synagogue hath never had any temporal power over 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 spoke to Samuel touching Saul, so he should speak to the Pope by name, about the abdication of some certain King, and of substituting an other in his place. For in this case it cannot be denied, but that the authority of the Pope is equal to samuel's, and his ministery alike in executing the Commandment of God. But if not, I mean if the Lord hath not expressly spoken to the Pope in his ear, I pray you how can it be, that when he desires by his own proper authority to thrust any King out of his Throne, that he should maintain, that he doth it by the example of Samuel, whom God did delegate by a special charge, and an extraordinary mission, to signify his decree touching the abdication of Saul? Samuel knew certainly, that God had rejected Saul and all his race, that they should not reign; for the Lord told him so much. But the Pope knows not, whether God have rejected that Prince whom he desires to depose, unless God hath specially revealed it to him. Seeing there is nothing more certain by the Scriptures, then that God doth for divers causes tolerate wicked Kings, and contemners of his word, and doth cause them to reign for the time, 
f job 34.  whom when it pleaseth him, he either converteth to him, or everteth and overthroweth. And it happeneth often, that they whom the Pope, who judgeth according to outward appearance, pronounceth unworthy to reign by their present conditions and state of life, those the Lord, to whom all things are present, declareth to be most worthy to reign, their minds being converted to holiness and grace: whereof not ●ong agone we have seen a memorable example now in our age. For who knoweth not (I speak it to the honour and glory of this great King) that HENRY the IV. who now most happily governeth the stern of the Kingdom of France, and I pray God he may govern long, was not only excommunicate by Gregory and Sixtus Popes, but also was so rejected, and abandoned, and deprived of all right of Kingdom, that by their censures they declared him uncapable of any kingdom or government whatsoever; whose judgement the Lord indeed did laugh to scorn, and demonstrated that the King, which was reproved by them, was most worthy of a worthy Kingdom. Seeing then these things stand thus, and are altered and changed at the pleasure of God, how can the Pope know and understand the pleasure and will of God, unless like unto Samuel he be advertised before? Therefore that which Sanders saith, That King who shall refuse to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope, etc. is true in the case wherein the Pope is supposed to execute those things which the Lord shall command him by special revelation. For otherwise what shall we say? Philip the Fair, did he therefore disdain to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of the Pope, because he would not hear Boniface, swelling with a most proud ambition? that it should be thought that he might be by Boniface deprived of the right of his crown, and an other to be substituted in his place? What say you to Lewes the XII because he would not hear julius the II. being complete armed, and playing the soldier rather than the Pope? did he seem to have contemned God, speaking by the mouth of the Pope, so far, is both he and his fauoure●s should deserve to be condemned and turned out of their Kingdoms, at the pleasure of man, that boiled inwardly with a private hatred against him? To believe such matters, good Lord, should I term it ignorance, or madness? But this is enough touching the first argument of Sanders propounded by us.  
His second argument, (to confess plainly the weakness of my wit) I do not well understand to what purpose it aimeth. For that it may have some strength and force to prove the point which is in hand, and to be consequent and agreeable 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 pass by revelation from God, or by his commandment, willed any thing to be done, might by their own right, I mean, by their proper authority, and ordinary virtue of then office, without any special revelation, or commandment from God, command the same, whatsoever it was to be done, or otherwise might execute and discharge the same by themselves. As though Ahias the Silonite, whom God had sent to jeroboam with a special charge, that he should tell him, that he will give him ten Tribes out of the Kingdom of Solomon, in these words, Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Behold I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give theeten Tribes. As though, I say, Ahias without any such express commandment of God, & without any special revelation, might have called jeroboam or any other into Salomon's Kingdom, or into part thereof. Then which nothing can be said more falsely, 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 far forth as they thought it expedient for the safety of the people, which also is most false, neither is there to be found in all the scriptures any example, or step, 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 be rightly concluded, except they be granted, & that it is evident enough, that there is no firm 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 own judgement, without much Logic, that all this business which he hath drawn from the prediction of Ahias, is as far as may be from that which he hath undertaken to prove?  
The third argument also is even of the same stuff; for what relation hath the extraordinary mission of Elias, for the special execution of certain business to the ordinary office of the Pope? or what coherence and connexion of these two Propositions can there be? Elias, at the Lords commandment by name; (for that Sanders omitted, which notwithstanding could not be omitted without blame,) anointed Asael King over Syria, and jehu King over Israel, and Eliseus a Prophet for him: Ergo the Pope may take away and give kingdoms and principalities as he shall think good? For these cannot be joined together, unless this medium be set down and granted; That the Pope may do as much by the authority of his ordinary jurisdiction, without the express commandment of God, as the Prophets could when the Lord commanded specially and expressly, which cannot be said without great injury to God.  
But as touching the sword of Elizeus, whereof he speaketh: First, he doth with much learning and piety discourse of the same. That it may be understood of the same. That it may be understood of the spiritual sword, which is in the Church, & in the hand of the Pope, whom no man whatsoever he be, either King or Emperor can avoid: and which is placed by the Lord in the last place; both for that it is inevitable, and therefore the more to be feared then the other; as also for that the bodies only are killed by them, but the souls by this. But afterwards, when he proceeds after his manner, and by interpretation transferreth that place of scripture, and an other of the revenge of Elias upon the two companies of 50. & their soldiers, to the temporal authority of the Pope, he slideth into that shameful error which we noted afore, which is, that Prophets without special commission, or divine revelation, might by their own authority and pleasure chastise even with capital punishments all those whom God had decreed by a secret dispensation to take revenge upon either by miracle, or otherwise, either to manifest the glory of his majesty, or to vindicate the injuries of his servants; and that which God had commanded to be done only by one mean, that they may execute by other ways, and means as please them; that hereby he may prove as by a necessary consequence, that the Pope (whose authority is no less, yea greater in the new law than was the authority of the Prophets and Priests in the old) may do full as much by his Apostolic authority.  
But who doth not know, that God hath granted many things to the prayers of his servants, and for their takes hath wrought many things wonderfully, even without their prayers, which it was not lawful for them by any way or mean to attempt, much less to execute, if he did not command it first? The reason whereof is plain and evident in the persons of the Prophets. For it is clear amongst all men, that none of the Pro phets had any authority and government over the Hebrews, besides a very few, who were both Prophets and Princes of the people and judges together, as Moses, joshua, Samuel, David. But the rest, although they were inspired from God, yet they lived privately without any temporal government, declaring and executing those things only, whereof they were advertised by the spirit of God; and all their prescience and fore knowledge was so tempered and moderated from heaven, that they might know and foretell neither all things, for at all times, but so far as was imparted unto them by the spirit of God; whereof the Prophet jadon is a witness, who being deceived by the false Prophet, affirming that the Angel of the Lord had spoken with him, did not understand that he lied, and thereby was craftily abused and brought to destruction 
g ●. Reg. 13. , Eliseus also is witness, who when the poor Sunamite lay at his feet, said to Giezi that desired to remove her, 
h 4. Reg. 4.  Leather alone, for her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord bath bidit from me, and hath not told me.  
Therefore, whereas Sanders asketh, whether Elias could not say to some principal man or magistrate, if he had been present; run upon these Soldiers and kill them? and if so be that Prince bade offended, if upon Elias his word, he had slain the King's subjects; that cannot be resolved but by the tenor of God's pleasure known in every business. And therefore as concerning Elias in this case; if God did give him commission to punish such offenders, either specially by the sword, or generally by any mean whatsoever: no man doubts, but that he might without sin commit to any man the authority and execution of the sword, and any man without offence might undertake to execute that commandment. But if, as it is likely, the Lord had only revealed so much to him, that he would destroy with fire from heaven those wicked desiders and scoffers: he was only to expect that, and to practise nothing else against them, after the guise and fashion of men, or give order at his pleasure to execute any civil punishments upon them, which he might not do without impiety, because he had received neither from God nor man any ordinary, nor warranted & delegated jurisdiction to do it. And for that cause he had sinned grievously, if he had willed or persuaded any Prince or Magistrate any such thing; and these also had sinned, if undertaking his commandment, they had slain the King's subjects 
i L. non solum. 11. §. semanda to. D. de iniur. lib. reprehendenda. C. de instit. & substi. . Nothing can be propounded more certainly and plainly then this distinction, that it is a wonder, that so absurd an opinion should fall from Sanders, as to think that Elias might simply, and without the express commandment of God, execute death upon the kings soldiers, in what manner he listed. Now the reasons he useth for the strengthening of this opinion of his, are frivolous, and utterly unworthy to be brought by a man of a sharp judgement, especially a Divine for the dicision of such a question. That service, which the sire from heaven did, saith he, could not the earthly sword have performed the same? Yes surely could it, and not only a sword, but also any other weapon, if it had been used by God's commandment; neither did any ever doubt of that. But because the Lord prepared that revenge by fire only against the fifty, and acquainted the Prophet in the spirit with his purpose 
k Liran in illum locum. ; Elias neither ought nor could take his revenge by any other instrument or mean, unless the same had likewise been declared to him by the same spirit, because in matters not revealed he was neither ordinary or extraordinary judge. Moreover, if that which the laws of men do ordain and enact: When any man is condemned to be punished with the sword, he ought to be punished with the sword, not with an axe or bill, or club, or halter, or by any other way 
l Aut. da●●● 8. §. 1. de p●n. , Who is so averse from truth, and from all reason to believe, that one certain and particular manner of execunon, being prescribed by the Lord, may be changed by man into an other form and kind of punishment? For as in all businesses 
m 〈…〉.  the ends of the commandment are to be kept diligently, so chiefly in the divine commandments, 
n 〈◊〉. 18.  God hath charged that his commandments be kept everely.  
Hereby it appears, that it is very sleight and slender which he layeth down 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 error is double: o●e because he draweth that Maxim of his to universally and generally, to all those things which are made by nature, or Art, or hand: whereas notwithstanding, as touching human actions it is certain, that that sentence hath place only in those things, which men do of their own accord, or upon a commission received with free liberty of execution: as for example, that he is called a murderer, who by villainy hath been the cause of any man's death by any mean 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 man's trust to be performed in a certain manner, and after a certain form, the laws do not allow the Committee to execute the same any other way, as appear plainly, by the place which I related above, and infinite others of the Civil and Pontificial law.  
His other error is, that he thinketh there is no odds nor difference, if wicked men be strooken with a divine thunderbolt from God, or with force of weapons by the power of men: because he saith, that they have 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 be had, by what manner and mean the same is executed upon the guilty, because there be degrees as of crimes, so of pains: and hereby it cometh to pass, that by the kind of the ultion, and griceousnesse or lightness of the punishment, we judge of the heinousness of the offence, by the proportion and resemblance of the punishment with the fault 
o 〈…〉. . For the distribution of punishments and rewards doth require a Geometrical proportion. The Poet saith prettily 
p Hora lib. 1. Sa●y. 3. .  
— adsit  
Regula. peccatis quae poenas ●roget aequas:  
Nescutica dignum horribili sectere fligello.  
But Where greater punishments do follow, let him be corrected with greater punishment 
q G●eg. lib 7. epist 53. 〈…〉. dist. 50.  Excellently saith S. Augustine 
r 〈…〉. 24. q. 1. . As all other things: Who doubteth, but that this is the more heinous offence which is punished more severely? Therefore doth he very undiscreetelie determine that all punishments being taken by sword, by fire, by famine, and by other means, are of the same weight and heaviness, that he might conclude, that the Prophet had discharged his duty, if he had procured to have them flame with the earthly sword, whom the Lord said he would strike with a thunderbolt from heaven. Who doth not know that the anger and revenge of almighty God doth shine much more brightly in punishments, not which are inflicted after the ordinary manner of men, but are sent strangely & miraculously from heaven? or who can weigh matters so unevenly in his judgement, as to say, that they perished by punishments, equal for grievousness, who being swallowed up by the gaping earth, descended alive into hell, as well as those who are taken away by the ordinary or extraordinary punishments of man's laws? And hitherto I think I have said enough of these reasons of Sanders which were omitted by Bellarmine, not without cause Now let us return out of this bypath to Bellarmine again.   

CHAP. XXXVII.  
HItherto have I bend the sharpness of my best understanding, to inquire with diligence into all the reasons, which Bellarmine or Sanders have touching the temporal authority of the Pope. Therefore now it remaineth that with the like care and endeavour I convert my mind and hand to examine the examples propounded by Bellarmine, which truly is but a poor and a weak kind of proof. For he pretends that his opinion is proved two manner of ways, by reasons and by examples; I could have wished with all my heart that he had brought forth stronger reasons: the affection which I bear to the Sea Apostolic, doth so affect and possess me, that I do very earnestly desire that all the authority which this author doth attribute unto her, may be also allowed by the best right that can be. But we have heard his reasons already, now let us hear his examples.  
The first is, saith he, 2. Paralip. 26. Where we read that Ozia the King when he usurped the Priest's office, was by the high Priest cast out of the temple and being stroke by God with a leprosy for the same offence, was forced to go out of the City, and to leave his kingdom to his Son. For it is plain, that he was put out of the City and government of the Kingdom, not of his own accord, but by the sentence of the Priest. For we read in the 13. of Leuit. Whosoever saith the Law, shall be defiled with the leprosy and is separated by the judgement of the Priest, he shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing then this was a law in Israel. & withal we read, 2 Paralip. 26. that the King dwelled without the City in a solitary house, and that his son did judge within the City the people of the land; we are constrained to say, that he was separated by the judgement of the Priest, and consequently deprived of the authority of reigning. If therefore a Priest could in times past judge a King for a corporal leprosy, and deprive him of his Kingdom; why may not he do it now for a spiritual leprosy, that is, for heresy, which was figured by the leprosy, as Augustine teach●th, in quaest. evangel lib. 2. quaest. 40. especially seeing 1. Cor. 10. Paul doth say, that all happened to the jews in figures? Thus he.  
I have often wondered, and yet cannot leave wondering, that men famous for the opinion of learning, should commit their thoughts to writing in so slight and homely a fashion, that a man would think they had not read the Authors which they commend, or have not fully understood those they have 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, do draw the testimonies and authorities of their assertions, not from the Fountains themselves, but from the Rivers and Pipes, being corruptly derived by the negligence and fault of other men; so as look what the first have either maliciously or negligently detorted and wrested to another sense, that others trusting to their search and judgement, do transcribe into their books, for certain and undoubted testimonies. Which although it be very seldom found in Bellarmine, being a faithful and a clear Author, yet it cannot be denied, but that he following unadvisedly Sanders and others, hath not erred a little in the three Chapters of the affirming the Pope's temporal authority, especially in propounding the former example, and this following.  
I proved long ago, in my books contra Monarchomachos, that it was most false, That Ozia was deprived of the authority of his government by the judgement of the Priest. For in very truth, there is nothing more expressly delivered in the whole history of the Kings, than that ●zias, from the sixteenth year of his age, wherein he began his reign, remained King continually unto the 68 year, which was the end of his life; and that he was not any time deprived of the authority of his government. Indeed it is true, he dwelled apart in a house by itself; and therefore, by reason of his sickness, he could not execute those duties of a King, which consist in action: but that took not from him his interest in his kingdom, nor authority of government. Otherwise we must deny, that children being inaugurated and crowned, as in time, past● joas, and josias, and men of sawfull 
〈…〉 11. 〈…〉 22.  age, are any Kings, if once they fall into any grievous disease of mind or body; seeing they are hindered by their youth these by their sickness, from the procuration and government of the Kingdom, which consisteth in action. For the Scripture saith, In the 27. year of jeroboam King of Israel, reigned Azarias (who was called both Ozias and ●acharias) the son of Amasias' King of juda: he was sixteen years of age when he began to reign, and reigned 52. years in jerusalem. And again in the same Chapter: In the 52 year of Azariah King of juda reigned Pha●ee the son of Romelias' over Israel in Samaria. And josephus 〈◊〉 that this Izariah or Oziah died in the 68 yeer● of his age, and the 52. of his reign. ' If therefore 
〈…〉 11.  Ozias began to reign being 16. years of age, and reigned 52. years as the Scripture witnesseth, and died in the 68 year, what space, I pray you, in his life can be ●ound, wherein he was judged and deprived of his right in his Kingdom? In the mean time his son was Curator or Regent to him, as they are wont to have, ● qui in ea causasunt, ut superesse rebus suis non possint. For it is added 
〈…〉  in that story; joatham the son of the King governed the palace, and ruled the house of the King, and judged the people of the Land. Mark, I pray you, that joatham is called the son of the King, in the life and sickness of his Father, and Governor of the Palace, and Ruler of the House of the King. Now he judged the people, because judgements 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 place. To be short, the Scripture saith: And Ozias slept with his Fathers, and they buried him in the Field of the King's sepulchres, because he was leprous; and joatham his son reigned in his stead. Mark again, that joatham beginneth not to reign, but after the death of his Father. Therefore although it be true, that Ozias, by reason of his leprosy, was separate by the judgement of the Priest, because it was expressly provided by the Law of God: yet it is not true, that he was deprived of the authority of reigning or enforced to renounce his Kingdom to his son, as these men falsely do aver. The authority of reigning, and the administration of a Kingdom, do differ very much, and no less than in the civil Law, propriety and possession. The authority is always in the person of the King, and is joined with the right of the Crown: but the government and procuration, or administration, may fall into other men's hands; so as one may be King, and another the Governor. Whence they who in the minority or diseases of Kings, do bear the highest place of government in the Kingdom, are honoured with the title of Governor, Regent, Tutor, Protector, or some such like; and they propound nor handle any public affair in their own name, but in the name and authority of the King, being either infant, or sickly.  
Therefore this example of Ozias is so far from helping anything to this temporal authority of the Pope over Kings, as it maketh very much for to impugn and overthrow the same. For if (as he reporteth out of the Apostle, and we confess) that all things befell to the jews in figures, and if the corporal leprosy, for which a man was separated from the multitude of the children of Israel, and dwelled alone without the camp, was a figure of the spiritual leprosy, that is, of heresy, by Augustine his testimony; to be short, if the Priesthood of Aaroa was a figure of the Priesthood of the new Law; out of these figures two arguments are appositely drawn to this question: whereof the former doth notably confirm the spiritual authority of the Pope over Christian Kings and Princes; the other proveth, that this temporal authority of his, whereof we speak, is altogether commentitious, and forged, usurped, and contrary 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 struck with the leprosy, that he might dwell without the City; so at this day the Pope may judge, and by excommunication separate from the communion of the faithful, a King infected with heresy, which is a spiritual leprosy, and so constrain him to dwell without the City, that is, without the Church Catholic, until he be cleansed from his leprosy, that is, until he have absured his heresy. But if such a leprosy stick by him till death, he is not to be buried in the sepulchres of the Kings, that is, in the Church, but in the field, because he is leprous, that is to say, an heretic. Now that I said, that the Pope might separate an heretic King by excommunication from the communion of the faithful, it must be understood of the spiritual separation of souls, and not of bodies. For subjects ought not to deny their obedience to an excommunicate King.  
The second argument may rightly be concluded in this form: As the judgement of the Priest of a corporal leprosy, in the old Law, wrought nothing but the separation of the leprous, and relegation without the Camp or City; and as the judgement of the Priest touching the leprosy of Azaria or Ozia, could not take from him the right of his Kingdom, but only imposed on him a necessity to dwell by himself without the City, (for in that he did not actually, as they say, govern the Kingdom, that fell out, not through the sentence of the Priest, who judged of the leprosy, but the force of the continual disease of his body) so also at this day the censure and sentence of the Pope, whereby he judgeth and declareth a King to be an heretic, although it cause a King to remain without the City of God, that is, without the Catholic Church, as hath been said; yet it cannot take from him the right and authority to reign: and so the figure doth very fitly convene with the figured. For in these figures of the old Testament, the image of the authority of the Pope over Kings is not only drawn in lineaments, but fully expressed to the life; that if any fit argument may be drawn from the shadow to the body, from the figure to the figured, none can more evidently or assuredly be fitted then these, from the constitution of the old Law, to the observation of the new. But if the adversaries out of all the figures of the old Law, can shape any one like to this for the strengthening of their opinion, they shall have my voice for the bell: surely they shall never find me against them. Therefore now let us see the second example.   

CHAP. XXXVIII.  
THe second, saith he, is out of 2. Paralip. 23. whereas when Athalia had tyrannously usurped the Kingdom, and maintained the worship of Baal, joiada the high Priest called the Centurions and the Soldiers, and commanded them to kill Athalia, and in her place did choose joas King. Now that the high Priest did not counsel, but command, it appeareth by those words, 4 Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all which joiada the Priest commanded them: also by these words, 2. Paralip. 23. But joiada the oigh Priest going out to the Centurions and Captains of the Army, said unto them, Bring her out, meaning Athalia the Queen, without the doors of the Temple, and let her be slain without by the sword. And that the cause of this deposition and execution of Athalia, was not only her tyranny, but also, for that she maintained the worship of Baal, is plain out of those words which follow immediately after her death: Therefore, saith the Scripture, all the people went into the house of Baal, and destroyed it, and broke down the Altars and Images thereof. They slew also Mathan the Priest of Baal.  
Surely I do not know what moved Bellarmine to thrust upon us this example, so remote and far off from the matter and controversy: unless because he had observed that it was propounded by others before him, fearing peradventure, lest if he had omitted it, he should be accused by some emulous adversaries, of negligence and prevarication to Pope Sixtus V. who being beyond all measure imperious and haughty, and not greatly favouring the society of the Jesuits, determined to reduce that whole Order to a straighter rule and habit of life, which should be distinguished from the Secular Priests in colour, form, or some other outward mark. Therefore I do muse with myself, how they obtained of him that Bull, that they might occupy the perpetual Dictature of the University of Pontimussa, that is, that they should for ever be Rectors, or Precedents, against the form and statutes of that foundation, made by Gregory the XIII. There be that think, that the Bull was supposititious, that is, devised and counterfeit. Surely although it were true and granted by Sixtus, yet it ought not to be of force, because it was obtained presently after his creation: at which time, whatsoever the Popes do grant, is judged not so much to be obtained of them, as to be extorted from them. 
a Glos. in pro●●m. reg. Cancel. Nevisa. in syl. nuptial. Reb●st. in tract. ut beneficia aut. vacat. nu. 9 & 10.  But to the matter.  
That the example touching joiada and Athalia belong nothing to this disputation, it appeareth by this, that all our controversy standeth in this: Whether the Pope be endued with so great authority over lawful Kings and Princes Secular, that he may for certain causes cast them down from their Throne, and deprive them of the right of their Kingdom, and anoint and inaugurate others in their places. But the example of Athalia, is of a woman which held the Kingdom by no right, but by most cruel and savage tyranny, by force and villainy, and by the bloody murder of the King's house; who stood therefore in that case, that she might justly be slain of any private person, without the commandment of the Priest joiada. But for that such a matter seemed dangerous to attempt, and hard to compass against her, who was mother to Ochozias the King deceased: therefore there was great need of the counsel and help of joiada the high Priest, or surely of some other, who likewise either by the greatness of his authority, or the opinion of holiness, might assemble, and even stir up the Soldiers and the people to undertake so noble and worthy an action.  
And that this was done, not so much by the commandment, as advice of joiada, it is plain by that which is said: joiada the high Priest sent, and taking to him the Centurions and Soldiers, caused them to be brought into him into the Temple of the Lord, and he struck a Covenant with them. And that the Interpreters do note in that place, but the words jubere, or praecipere, are wont to be spoken of every man, who hath the chief place in a Faction or Society. Therefore there is nothing found in this example, which hath any the least similitude or agreement with the assertion which is undertaken by the adversaries to prove. The assertion is, that lawful Princes, that is to say, they who obtain Kingdoms and Principalities, by right either of Election or Succession, may for certain causes be deposed from their government by the Pope. And than what doth it help for the proof of this proposition, to propound an example of a Tyrant, or the kill of a Tyrant? Do they think that there is no difference between the true Lords and lawful possessors, and the spoilers and invaders 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 tyranny, it maketh no matter: it is sufficient that she was a Tyrant, and a violent usurper of the Kingdom, insomuch as there was of her part no hindrance nor bar in Law, but that she might be cast headlong out of the seat, and be slain by any of the people. Which cannot in like manner be said of a lawful King; whose person, although it be wicked, the Law of a kingdom, and the authority of rule, ought always to protect and defend, from all injury and human punishment; as we have proved otherwhere, out of the writings of the holy Fathers. Now the third followeth.   

CHAP. XXXIX.  
THe third example, saith he, is of S Ambrose, who being Bishop of Milan, and by that the spiritual Pastor and Father of Theodosius the Emperor, who ordinarily did reside at Milan, did first excommunicate him for the slaughter which by his commandment was done at Thessalonica: secondly, he enjoined him to make a Law, that the sentence given of the slaughter and of the publication of goods, of them who were slain, should not stand good, till after thirty days from the pronouncing of the sentence, to the end that if he had through anger and precipitation of mind, commanded any thing, he might revoke it within the space of so many days. But Ambrose could not excommunicate Theodosius for that slaughter, unless he had first understood and judged of that cause, although it were Criminal, and belonged to an external Court: but he could not understand and judge a cause of that nature, unless also he had been a lawful judge of Theodosius in an external Court. Besides, to constrain the Emperor to make a civil Law, and to prescribe unto him a form of a Law, doth it not manifestly declare, that a Bishop sometimes doth use a temporal authority even over them who have received authority over others? And if any Bishop may do that, much more the Prince of Bishops. Thus he.  
And this example also is very far from the matter in question, wherein appeareth neither mention, nor so much as any token of a temporal authority of a Bishop over an Emperor, or any thing else, whereby it may be concluded by any probable argument, that such an authority doth belong to a Bishop: but wholly belongeth to that spiritual authority of a Bishop which we both in heart acknowledge, and confess with the mouth, that the pope hath over all Christians, of what order or place so ever they be. Ambrose excommunicated the Emperor for an offence committed by the injust slaughter of many men: doth not this belong to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which at this time Ambrose did exercise by his Episcopal authority? But he could not excommunicate, saith he, unless he had understood and judged of that cause before, although it were criminal, and belonged to the external Court. Yes, he might de facto (as unadvised Priests do, whom I have seen sometimes send out an excommunication, without tendering of the cause;) but de iure he ought not, otherwise he should have been an injust judge, if he had punished the delinquent, party without hearing of the cause. But let it be so: he understood the cause, and judged him worthy of censure, and therefore did excommunicate the Emperor; what then? But he could not understand and judge of such a cause, (saith he) unless also he had been a lawful judge of Theodosius in an external Court. Alas, we are catched in a snare, unless we beware this piece of sophistry: there lurketh in this assertion, an exceeding cunning deceit, by these words, In an external Court. A Court is twofold, Politic or Civil: and Ecclesiastic or Spiritual. The civil Court is wholly external, the Ecclesiastic is subdivided into external and internal. The external Court Ecclesiastic is, wherein the causes belonging to the notice of the Church, are openly handled and judged; and if they be criminal, punishment is taken of them by Excommunication, interdiction, suspension, deposition, or by other means, and oftentimes both the temporal and spiritual or Ecclesiastical judge do hear the same crime, even in the external Court: but each of them in his proper Court, and to impose divers penalties, as the civil judge taketh knowledge of adultery, ut sacrilegi nuptiarum gladio feriantur. 
a L. quamnis. 30. C. ad l. jul. de adul.  The judge Eclesiastique also taketh knowledge, who hath the care of the soul, to admonish the offender of his fault, and if he persist in offending, to chastise him with spiritual punishments. But the internal Court of the Church, (which is called the Court of the soul, the Court of Poenitencie, the Court of Conscience) is that wherein the Priest takes notice and judgeth of the sins revealed to him by the conscience, and in his discretion doth enjoin him Poenitency according to the quality of the sin. For now the common opinion is, that Penitential constitutions are arbitrary, that not only the Bishop, but also any discreet Confessor, may regularly moderate, and 
b Can. de his ubi glos. ult. dist. 50 glos. in can. Mensuram ad ver. Sacer. do●● de ponit. dist ●.  mitigate them in the Court of the soul. If therefore Bellarmine by forum externum do understand the Ecclesiastical Court, which is content with spiritual pains only, we grant all which he saith. For Ambrose was the lawful judge of Theodosius in that Court, and that he openly declared in deed, and in effect, when as he did excommunicate him. But when this is set down and granted, there can nothing be gathered from hence to confirm the temporal authority of Bishop or Pope: because aswell the judgement, as the punishment was spiritual. But if Bellarmine by forum externum, understand the civil Court, it is most false which he propounds; for as the powers ecclesiastic and civil are distinguished of God, so are their Courts dictinct, their judgements distinct. For the same Mediator of God and men, Christ jesus, hath severed the offices of each power 
c Can. cum ad verum. 96. dist.  by their proper actions, and distinct dignitus. Surely he doth Ambrose great wrong, if he think that after he had obtained the Bishopric, he heard and judged criminal causes in a civil Court. Ambrose then was no lawful judge of Theodosius, in an external civil Court, which is enough to prove, that he could not judge or punish the Emperor with any temporal punishment. But you will say, Ambrose heard and judged of the slaughter. It is true, but not as a civil and temporal judge; I say, I did not take knowledge of the crime for the same end, for which the secular judge doth: that place out of Aristotle is very good, that 
d Lib. 1. Cap. 7. Ethic.  many may take knowledge of one and the same subject diversly, and after a divers manner, end and intention. It is the same right angle which the Geometrician searcheth to understand, and the handicrafts man to work by it. So it is the same crime whereof the Laicke judge taketh notice, that he may punish the offender by death, banishment, the purse, or by some other temporal punishment; and which the ecclesiastical judge knoweth, that for the quality of the offence, he may enjoin spiritual punishment and Penitence.  
At coegit Imperatorem adlegem politicum ferendam, viz. he constrained the Emperor to make a civil law; and therefore he used a temporal authority over him. A ●est. If he constrained him, by what power, by fear of what did he constrain him? The sum of the story will teach us that, which is thus. Ambrose had cast on Theodosius the band of excommunication, from whence when the Emperor desired to be delivered, the grave Prelate denies to do it, before such time as he see in him some fruit of repentance; what penitence, saith he, have you showed after so heinous a crime, or with what medicine have you cured your grievons wound? The Emperor answered, that it is the office of the Bishop, to temper, and lay a medicine to the wound, that is to say, to enjoin poenitencie to the sinner: but of the Penitent, to use those medicines which are given him, that is to say, to perform the poenitency enjoined unto him. Ambrose hearing this, for penitence and satisfaction, he imposed upon the Emperor the necessity to make this law whereof we speak: which being made and enacted, (for presently the Emperor commanded the law to be ordained) Ambrose did loose him fram his bonds of excommunication.  
Therefore in this case Ambrose used no temporal authority against Theodosius; but whatsoever it was he commanded by virtue and power of his spiritual jurisdiction; neither did the Emperor obey this Prelate for fear of any temporal punishment: for if he would not have obeyed, but (as wicked Princes sometimes do,) had contemned both the excommunication and the absolution, Ambrose could go no further at all 
e Cap. cum non ab homine. de iud. . But because the godly Prince was careful for his soul, lest he being bound too long with this spiritual chain, might through the long imprisonment gather filthiness and uncleanness, he obeyed the will of the Bishop, and that he might obtain of him the benefit of absolution, he performed at the admonition of the Bishop, a temporal office, which seemed to be profitable for the common wealth. Upon which occasion the Author of the history saith; For this so great virtue both the Emperor and the Bishop were famous. For I admire both; the liberty of the one, the obedience of the other. Again, the burning of the zeal of the one, and the purity of faith in the other.  
Ambrose then constrained Theodosius, just as our Confessaries at this day do constrain their penitents, to whom they often deny absolution of their crime, where they seriously promise that they will perform that office or burden, which in place of Penitence they lay on them: when as yet they have no temporal jurisdiction over them. He forced him likewise, even as any of us useth to force his neighbour, or fellow Burgess, when we deny that to him, which he desireth to be done or given him by us, unless he first do that which we desire for our friend's sake or our own. To be short, it is a common thing that a man is constrained or enforced by reason, by love, by grief, by anger, and by other affections and passions of the mind, without any authority of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction.  
These things standing thus, it is worth the observation in this example, that the Ecclesiastical power doth often with fear of spiritual punishment enforce men to perform temporal duties, as in this place, Ambrose did the Emperor; and of the contrary, that the civil power doth many times, by fear of temporal pains, drive others to perform spiritual offices, as when a Prince compelleth heretics or schismatics to return to the Church, for fear of bodily punishment, or loss of goods: and yet neither can the one impose temporal punishment, nor the other spiritual, but by accident, as they say. The fourth followeth.  
The fourth, saith he, is of Gregory the first, in the Privilege which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus, and is to be seen in the end of the Epistles. If (saith he) any King, Prelate, Bishop, or person whatsoever, shall violate the decrees of this Apostolic authority, and of our commandment of what dignity or honour soever he be, let him be deprived of his honour.  
If Bishop Gregory should live at this day, and understand that these words of his are taken in that sense, as though he had authority to deprive Kings of their honour and dignity, he would surely cry out, that it is a calumnious, and a wrested interpretation, and that he never so much as dreamt of any such matter; and indeed those things which in other places are left written by him, do utterly discredit this exposition. These than are the words, not of a commander, but of a curser, whereby he chargeth and adjureth all kind of men, that they do not violate the privilege granted by him, which if they shall do, that God will be the revenger to deprive them of honour: which kind of admonition and imprecation is at this day wont to be added to the ends of the Pope's Bulls, and constitutions, in this manner. Therefore it may be lawful for no man to in fringe this page, etc. or of presumption to contrary the same: but of any shall presume to attempt it let him incur 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 incur.   

CHAP. XL.  
BY that which hath been said, the Reader will easily see, that it is true, which before I set down; that there cannot be found, either in the holy Scriptures, or writings of holy Fathers, any print or example of the temporal authority of the Pope: and therefore that they do not well, nay, that they offend very grievously, who labour to strengthen an opinion most false in itself, by arguments and examples so remote and impertinent. By these means they deceive the unlearned, and are derided by the learned. I have already proved very plainly, that there is no force in the former examples, to prove that, which the adversaries affirm. And for the examples following, I take less thought to answer: For although some of them do fit the purpose of the adversaris, and show that Popes did sometimes use temporal authority, in the last ages of the Church; notwithstanding because they contain nothing but the singular actions of Popes, who, no man denieth but that they were men, and might commit faults and slips, after the manner of men, (in so much as it is now celebrated by a common Proverb, which we remembered before out of Sotus: Factum Pontificum non facit fidei articulum; (that is, The act of the Pope's doth not make an article of faith:) therefore touching their acts, wherein they have endeavoured to exercise such an authority, the question and disputation is behind, touching the lawfulness thereof, whether they were done lawfully, yea or no? Neither ought that to move us at all, the writers of the stories, who have in their writings recorded the acts of the Popes, have added no note or touch of reprehension, but rather have allowed and commended them. For I see that there were many reasons for that. First, because all the writers of that time were either Monks, or at the least Clergy men, who took most care, to increase and amplify the dignity of the Popes: and therefore they were very wary and heedful; not to reprehend, or check any actions of the Popes, and to accuse them of injustice. Secondly, for that in those times so great was the opinion of the Pope, that the multitude received and embraced in estimation all his actions, as if they had been done by God himself, in which respect john Gerson said not without reason, That the common people doth imagine the Pope as a God, who hath all authority in heaven and in earth. Myself have seen above fifty years agone in Scotland, when as that Kingdom did as yet stand sound in faith and religion, that the name of the Pope of Rome, (for so they spoke Scotishly, the Pape of Rome,) was had in such reverence with the multitude, that whatsoever was told them to have been said or done by him, was esteemed of all men as an oracle, and as a thing done by God himself. Lastly, for that a present danger did hang over their heads, which danger to this day bindeth the hands, and mussles the mouths of many, lest, if they should write any thing which was harsh and unpleasing to the Pope, or should tax and find fault with his actions, as well the writer as his writing, should forth with be stricken with the Pope's curses; which cannot seem strange to those, who do know that the anger and arrogancy of Pope Sixtus V. did burn so far, that as I touched before, he had determined to destroy, and quite extinguish the trim and goodly disputations of Bellarmine, because he thought that that excellent Divine, had not sufficiently enough satisfied his ambition, when as notwithstanding he had given him a great deal more than he should have done. Besides all these reasons, this is somewhat, that the chief duty of a story writer, consisteth in reporting, not in judging, in which regard, many who excelled more in remembrance of things done, then in judgement of them, applied their thoughts to the historical narration, and contenting themselves with the paked and simple relation only of all occurrents, did leave indifferent the equity thereof to all men's censures.  
Therefore although we owe to those men the true knowledge, and faithful report of matters passed, which they in their writings reserved and conveyed to posterity: yet we apprehend and receive the equity and justice 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 natural reason. And so here will be the point always to inquire and examine the equity of every action, and to search diligently, not what the author of a story hath praised or dispraised, but what ought to be praised or dispraised by good right and desert 
a L. Sed l●cet 12. D. de off. p●asid. . Therefore I stand not much upon examples, which neither are found and commended in the Scriptures nor are not proved to be worthy commendation, by some of those ways at the least, which we have set down. For assuredly, it is a very dangerous matter, for a man to propound to himself examples to imitate, being not before weighed in this balance, and by these weights, seeing that they that apply themselves to read monuments of antiquity shall more often light upon more evil examples then good and virtuous. For which cause the Emperor doth gravely admonish all judges, non exemplis sed legibus esse judicandum, and that in all businesses, they ought not to follow that which hath been by great Magistrates before them 
b 〈…〉 iud●●. 1●. C. de sent. & 〈…〉. , sed veritatem, legum & justitiae vestigia.  
These considerations advise me, not to dwell very long upon the prolix and exquisite discussion and examination of the rest of the Examples, produced by Bellarmine, unless I shall observe peradventure, that there is somewhat couched in them, whereby the unwary Reader may be ensnared, under a pretence and opinion of a truth. Therefore for some of them let us see which, and what they be.  
The fifth is of Gregory the II. saith he, who forbade tribute to be paid by the Italians to the Emperor Leo the Image-breaker, being excommunicate by him, and by that means cut a part of his Empire from him.  
Surely I think in this example the truth of the business as it passed is not set down, although I know it is so reported by certain Writers of story. And that which induceth me to think so, is both the excellent learning of that Pope, joined with a special integrity 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 own authority he withstood the Italians, being willing to fall away from that impious Prince, and to choose another Emperor over them. For so writeth Platina. But then the Emperor Leo the Third, when he could not openly inveigh against the Pope, publisheth an Edict, that all they who were under the Roman Empire, should dispatch and carry clean away out of the Churches, the Statues and Images of all Saints, Martyrs, and Angels, to take away Idolatry, as he said: and he that did otherwise, he would hold him for a public enemy, or Traitor But Gregory doth not only not obey so great impiety, but also admonisheth all Catholics, that they would not in any sort commit so great an error, through the fear, or Edict of the Prince. With which cohortation the people of Italy was so encouraged, that they went very near to choose another Emperor: but Gregory 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 Emperor by Letters, that he would let go the errors of some ill disposed persons about him, and embrace the true faith at the length; and that he would forbeart to destroy the Images of the Saints, by whose memory and example men might be stirred up to the imitation of virtue.  
I do give credit to this Author in this point above other more ancient Writers, especially strangers: the rather, for that he by the Commandment of Sixtus Quintus a Pope, hath written the Pope's lives, and that at Rome, where he was furnished with many helps of ancient Monuments, to find out the truth of matters that passed in the City, and in Italy: which others wanting, as appeareth, did receive nothing but uncertain reports, and scattered rumours of men, (who many times report that to be done, which they would fain have done) for a certain and clear truth. If Platina had in silence passed over the former part of the story, surely he had confirmed as it were by a secret consent, the opinion of these men, who have otherwise written of Gregory. But seeing that he was not ignorant that they had written so, (being a man much conversant in those stories) and yet notwithstanding doth with a plain contradiction impugn their opinion, it is very probable, that he had far 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 proved in experience, that they are deceived many times, who from the relation of others do commit to writing the sayings and doings of people that lived far from them) then to blot the innocent life of an excellent Pope, with a filthy spot of injustice and rebellion. For albeit it be true, that according to his spiritual authority over all, he might worthily excommunicate this Emperor; yet he might not prohibit, that the people, being subject to the Roman Empire, should not give tribute to Cesar, or pay their customs to the Emperor, so long as he continued Emperor, without the manifest breach of the Law of God, and of the Doctrine of the Gospel. And it is certain that this Leo, although impious, continued Cesar unto 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 do write, that this Pope, who was famous both for Doctrine and life, was a Traitor 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 upon Leo Isaurus Iconumachus, to a part of his Empire: for he practised no mischief, as appeareth by this story of Platina, neither against the Country, nor against the Prince. Now followeth the sixth.   

CHAP. XLI.  
THe sixth is of Zacharie, saith he, who being desired by the Nobility of France, deposed Childerique, and caused Pipine the Father of Carolus Magnus, to be created King in his place.  
Before I speak any thing of this example, it is worth my pains, to unfold the dark story touching the same, and briefly to describe the whole action of Zacharie, joining the circumstances on both sides, together with the opinion, for proof whereof it is brought: and by this mean it may more easily appear to the Reader, how small strength it hath to confirm the proposition of the adversaries.  
First of all therefore, in that story it is worthy the observation, that Childerique and divers other Meroningians, that were Kings before him, reigning without any authority at all in their Kingdoms, had nothing but the vain 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 Majors of the Palace, and who indeed swayed the whole government of the Kingdom: who were so much above the Kings, and ordered and governed them, as the King possessed nothing of his own, besides the idle name of the King, and some allowance assigned him for his maintenance during life, which the Mayor of the Palace made him in his discretion, but one poor Lordship in the Country, of a small revenue, and in that a house, where he kept a few servants to attend him for his necessary services, and to wait upon him: as Eginhartus writeth in the life of Charlemagne.  
If any than do look more nearly into the matter, he shall find, that in those times there were after a sort two Kings in France: one, who like the King in the ●hesse, had only the name of a King, but no kingly authority, as Atmoinus speaketh: but the other, who was called the Mayor of the Palace, in whom consisted the whole authority of the kingdom. He in name only was under the King, but in authority and power over the King; so as he wanted nothing but the name, for the full and absolute Majesty of ruling and reigning, which also at the last was given him by the people, that the sovereign government which he swayed, might be signified by the title of a sovereign honour. Therefore Atmoinus speaking of Charles Martel, father of Pipine, who overthrew a huge Army of Saracens, rushing into France out of Spain: King Charles saith he, having beaten and overcome the armies of his enemies, under Christ the Author and Head of Peace and Victory, returned home in safety into France, the seat of his government. Mark how he calls the Mayor of the palace a King, by reason of that royal authority which he bore.  
Secondly, in that story is to be observed, that the Nobility of France, being weary of the slothfulness of their idle Kings, did with a wonderful consent convert their eyes and hearts to Pipine Mayor of the Palace, son to Charles; which did so animate him to the hope of the Kingdom, that he openly, without niceness, affected the name of a King: which that he might more easily compass, without mislike and displeasure of the Commons, he resolved, that the Pope was first to be dealt withal by an Ambassador, and his assent to be required; judging indeed, as the truth was, that if the Pope should give his assent, that the Commons would easily rest in his judgement, by reason of the holiness and reverend opinion of the See Apostolic.  
Thirdly, we must understand, that Zacharie the Pope was generally advised withal in the cause of the Kings, which reigned at that time in France, whether ought to be called King, he who had only the name of a King, and no royal authority, or he who by his industry and wisdom did manage and govern all the affairs of the State: and that he the same Pope answered generally again, that it were better that he should be called King, in whom the sovereign authority did reside; by which answer the Nobility being induced, do elect Pipine King. There is no question, but that the Pope was truly acquainted in hypothesi, that is, in particular, that Childerique was to be abandoned, who carried only the false name of a King, and that Pipine was in his place to be advanced to the Crown. But I suppose that he answered so generally, for that the proposition being delivered in general terms, carried no note of any certain person, and left to the Nobility of France their judgement entire and free, to collect from thence that which they desired And so the Pope did not simply depose Childerique, but gave his assent with the Deposers. But because his consent was especially regarded, therefore certain Historians do precisely say, that he deposed Childerique.  
Lastly, in that story it must be seriously and diligently weighed, that Zacharie the Pope, having heard Pipinus his Ambassadors, touching the change of the Kingdom, and deposition of Childerique, judged it to be a matter of such novelty, and difficulty also, as at the first he durst not entertain the thought of so great an enterprise, although that by this time he had understood sufficiently, that the sloth and idleness of the Merovingians did greatly endamage the Church and Christian Commonwealth, until such time as he was certainly persuaded and saw, that the whole nobility of France did favour Pipin, and desire him for their King, and moreover, that Childericque was the last of the race of the Merovingians without children, so dull and blockish, That he could not tell how to grieve for the loss of his kingdom, as was fit for him, neither was there any that would moon his case. These were the inducements, which being joined with a special love & affection, which the Pope did bear to Pipine (for that he and his father Charles, had with many good offices deserved well of the Church of Rome and Apostolic Sea,) did move Zacharie to essent to the French, who desired this change of their Kings.  
These things although they be in this manner written touching this business, yet have we great cause to doubt of the justice 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 affirm, that no sober man will deny that that Act was just. But he allegeth nothing, but that the wisest man living may affirm for all that, that it was injust. I say he brings no probable and forcible reason, whereby a wise man may persuade himself, that the Pope did justly assent to the French men in the deposition of Childericke, since that in no case, we ought to do ill, that good although it be very great may come thereof. Now we have sufficiently declared, that for a lawful King to be deposed by his own subjects, or to consent to the deposers, seeing he hath God only above him, to whom only he is bound to yield account of his actions, is by itself, and simply evil. And the two reasons which he useth to justify the justice of that deposition, are so uncertain and frivolous, that I wonder that they were over propounded by him. For first, in that he measures the equity of this fact of Zachary by the event of the business, as though the action must be accounted just, because that change of the Kingdom had prosperous and happy success, (especially, saith he, since the event doth teach, that that change was most happy.) it is so trivial and childish, that it was not to be conceived, much less alleged in writing by such a man,  
— Careat successibus opto,  
Quisquis ab eventu facta not anda putes.  
For what I pray you? Was not afterwards in the same Kingdom of France the change from the Carolouingi● to the Capevingii made with great injustice? For Hugo Capet a man of a great mind, and might in the state, when none was able to repress or encounter his practices, usurped the Kingdom by force & arms, & obtained the crown, taking the true heir, and casting him into prison. For which fact Gaguinus calleth him an usurper of the Kingdom. And yet all the world doth know that that change was most happy, and as some think, done by the secret judgement of God, that Pipine who had wrongfully taken the Kingdom from the Merovingij, should at the last suffer the like wrong in his posterity. Therefore the Carolovingians did not so long hold the Kingdom, if they be compared with the Capevingians. And the Capevingians have the government much longer established in their house, and as I hope will have for ever.  
The second reason also, is no whit stronger which he draweth from the holiness of Boniface the Bishop, who at the commandment of Zacharie anointed and crowned Pipine King. Add, saith he, to these, that he who anointed and crowned King Pipine by the Pope's commandment, was a most holy man, viz. B. Boniface Bishop and Martyr, who surely would never have been the author of injustice, and of a public offence. This I say is a very light argument, and of no weight. For in that business Boniface was only a Minister of the Apostolic commandment, and therefore it was no prejudice to his holiness, which he executed at the Pope's commandment: for he was bound to execute the Pope's sentence, 
c Cap. Pastoral §. quia vero de off. tud. del g.  although he knew it to be injust: and therefore although the injustice of the commandment had made Zacharie guilty, yet Boniface had been declared to be innocent by the order of serving, and necessity of obedience 
d Can quid ●ulpatur. 23. q. 1. can. miles. 23 q. 5.  Therefore Boniface might with a safe conscience fulfil the commandment of Zacharie, though it were injust. But this Zacharie was a good Pope. It may be so, we deny it not, so was David a good King, and holy, and Theodosius a good Emperor: 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 serve his own malice or love, and after the manner of men in some part violate justice? It is well known that Zacharie in those times did stand in extreme need of Pipines' aid, against the injuries of Aistulphus & the langobards; and was not that a strong engine to batter justice, think you? love, hatred, and a proper gain, make that a judge many times doth not know 
e A●●●tot. lib. ●. R●et. ad Theode●en. Cap. 1.  the truth.  
But to strive no longer about the equity of this act of Zacharie, let it be as they would have it, let us grant that that Act was most just: what strength do they win by this, to make good the temporal authority which they give to the Pope over Princes? is it any more, then that by the pattern of that action, the Pope may now do, as then Zacharie did? which is, that he may give his consent to a people for the like causes & respects to put down their king? that is to say, if he be a King, that hath only the Name, and not the authority or power of a King, who also hath no issue, like to die in orbity, and of mind so slothful and so blockish, that he may be deposed without any bloodshed, and of a Prince may be made a private person, no man moaning his fortune, no man following his party. For an argument from an example is nothing, unless the cases and causes be alike in each respect. Therefore this example of Zacharie, What maketh it to establish that infinite authority, whereon the Pope's relying in the following ages, have attempted, and sometimes gloried that they could undertake 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 only, but of their proper motion, by wars, by murder, by Schisms, by great miseries of the Christian commonwealth, to deprive them of their Kingdoms, and to spoil them of their crowns and sceptres? Will any wise man judge that this is lawful for them to do, by the example of Zacharias his Act? But of this matter enough.   

CHAP. XLII.  
THe death of the Author envied us this last part of the Book.   
FINIS.