hee hath a Right to change Kingdomes, giving them to one, and taking them from another,
when he shall think it conduces to the Salvation of Souls.
Before I come to consider the Arguments by which hee would prove this Doctrine, it will not
bee amisse to lay open the Consequences of it; that Princes, and States, that have the Civill
Soveraignty in their severall Common-wealths, may bethink themselves, whether it bee
convenient for them, and conducing to the good of their Subjects, of whom they are to give an
account at the day of Judgment, to admit the same.
When it is said, the Pope hath not (in the Territories of other States) the Supreme Civill Power
Directly; we are to understand, he doth not challenge it, as other Civill Soveraigns doe, from the originall submission thereto of those that are to be governed. For it is evident, and has
already been sufficiently in this Treatise demonstrated, that the Right of all Soveraigns, is
derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to bee governed; whether
they that choose him, doe it for their common defence against an Enemy, as when they agree
amongst themselves to appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to protect them; or whether
they doe it, to save their lives, by submission to a conquering Enemy. The Pope therefore,
when he disclaimeth the Supreme Civill Power over other States Directly, denyeth no more, but that his Right cometh to him by that way; He ceaseth not for all that, to claime it another way;
and that is, (without the consent of them that are to be governed) by a Right given him by
God, (which hee calleth Indirectly,) in his Assumption to the Papacy. But by what way soever he pretend, the Power is the same; and he may (if it bee granted to be his Right) depose
Princes and States, as often as it is for the Salvation of Soules, that is, as often as he will; for he claimeth also the Sole Power to Judge, whether it be to the Salvation of mens Souls, or not.
And this is the Doctrine, not onely that Bellarmine here, and many other Doctors teach in their
Sermons and Books, but also that some Councells have decreed, and the Popes have
accordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in practise. For the fourth Councell of
Lateran held under Pope Innocent the third, (in the third Chap. De Hæreticis,) hath this Canon.
If a King at the Popes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Hæretiques, and being
Excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a yeer, his Subjects are absolved of
their Obedience. And the practise hereof hath been seen on divers occasions; as in the
Deposing of Chilperique, King of France; in the Translation of the Roman Empire to
Charlemaine; in the Oppression of John King of England; in Transferring the Kingdome of Navarre; and of late years, in the League against Henry the third of France, and in many more occurrences. I think there be few Princes that consider not this as Injust, and Inconvenient;
but I wish they would all resolve to be Kings, or Subjects. Men cannot serve two Masters: They
ought therefore to ease them, either by holding the Reins of Government wholly in their own
hands; or by wholly delivering them into the hands of the Pope; that such men as are willing to
be obedient, may be protected in their obedience. For this distinction of Temporall, and
Spirituall Power is but words. Power is as really divided, and as dangerously to all purposes, by
sharing with another Indirect Power, as with a Direct one. But to come now to his Arguments.
The first is this, The Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall: Therefore he that hath the
Supreme Power Spirituall, hath right to command Temporall Princes, and dispose of their
Temporalls in order to the Spirituall. As for the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall, let us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the Temporall, or Civill Power is subject
to the Spirituall. There be but two ways that those words can be made sense. For when wee
say, one Power is subject to another Power, the meaning either is, that he which hath the one,
is subject to him that hath the other; or that the one Power is to the other, as the means to
the end. For wee cannot understand, that one Power hath Power over another Power; or that
one Power can have Right or Command over another: For Subjection, Command, Right, and
Power are accidents, not of Powers, but of Persons: One Power may be subordinate to another,
as the art of a Sadler, to the art of a Rider. If then it bee granted, that the Civill Government
be ordained as a means to bring us to a Spirituall felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a King
have the Civill Power, and the Pope the Spirituall, that therefore the King is bound to obey the
Pope, more then every Sadler is bound to obey every Rider. Therefore as from Subordination of
an Art, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Professor; so from the Subordination of a
Government, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Governor. When therefore he saith, the
Civill Power is Subject to the Spirituall, his meaning is, that the Civill Soveraign, is Subject to
the Spirituall Soveraign. And the Argument stands thus, The Civil Soveraign, is subject to the
Spirituall; Therefore the Spirituall Prince may command Temporall Princes. Where the
Conclusion is the same, with the Antecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he
alledgeth first, this reason, Kings and Popes, Clergy and Laity make but one Common-wealth;
that is to say, but one Church: And in all Bodies the Members depend one upon another: But
things Spirituall depend not of things Temporall: Therefore Temporall depend on Spirituall. And
therefore are Subject to them. In which Argumentation there be two grosse errours: one is,
that all Christian Kings, Popes, Clergy, and all other Christian men, make but one Common-
wealth: For it is evident that France is one Common-wealth, Spain another, and Venice a third,
&c. And these consist of Christians; and therefore also are severall Bodies of Christians; that is to say, severall Churches: And their severall Soveraigns Represent them, whereby they are
capable of commanding and obeying, of doing and suffering, as a naturall man; which no
Generall or Universall Church is, till it have a Representant; which it hath not on Earth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendome were one Common-wealth, whose Soveraign
were that Representant, both in things Spirituall and Temporall: And the Pope, to make himself
this Representant, wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given him, to Command,
and to Judge, and to Punish, otherwise than (by Excommunication) to run from those that will not Learn of him: For though the Pope were Christs onely Vicar, yet he cannot exercise his
government, till our Saviours second coming: And then also it is not the Pope, but St. Peter
himselfe, with the other Apostles, that are to be Judges of the world.
The other errour in this his first Argument is, that he sayes, the Members of every Common-
wealth, as of a naturall Body, depend one of another: It is true, they cohære together; but
they depend onely on the Soveraign, which is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which failing,
the Common-wealth is dissolved into a Civill war, no one man so much as cohæring to
another, for want of a common Dependence on a known Soveraign; Just as the Members of the
naturall Body dissolve into Earth, for want of a Soul to hold them together. Therefore there is
nothing in this similitude, from whence to inferre a dependance of the Laity on the Clergy, or of
the Temporall Officers on the Spirituall; but of both on the Civill Soveraign; which ought
indeed to direct his Civill commands to the Salvation of Souls; but is not therefore subject to
any but God himselfe. And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the first Argument, to deceive
such men as distinguish not between the Subordination of Actions in the way to the End; and
the Subjection of Persons one to another in the administration of the Means. For to every End,
the Means are determined by Nature, or by God himselfe supernaturally: but the Power to
make men use the Means, is in every nation resigned (by the Law of Nature, which forbiddeth
men to violate their Faith given) to the Civill Soveraign.
His second Argument is this, Every Common-wealth, (because it is supposed to be perfect and
sufficient in it self,) may command any other Common-wealth, not subject to it, and force it to
change the administration of the Government; nay depose the Prince, and set another in his
room, if it cannot otherwise defend it selfe against the injuries he goes about to doe them:
much more may a Spirituall Common-wealth command a Temporall one to change the
administration of their Government, and may depose Princes, and institute others, when they
cannot otherwise defend the Spirituall Good.
That a Common-wealth, to defend it selfe against injuries, may lawfully doe all that he hath
here said, is very true; and hath already in that which hath gone before been sufficiently
demonstrated. And if it were also true, that there is now in this world a Spirituall Common-
wealth, distinct from a Civill Common-wealth, then might the Prince thereof, upon injury done
him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done him in time to come, repaire, and secure
himself by Warre; which is in summe, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any act of
Hostility. But by the same reason, it would be no lesse lawfull for a Civill Soveraign, upon the
like injuries done, or feared, to make warre upon the Spirituall Soveraign; which I beleeve is
more than Cardinall Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.
But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world: for it is the same thing with the
Kingdome of Christ; which he himselfe saith, is not of this world; but shall be in the next
world, at the Resurrection, when they that have lived justly, and beleeved that he was the
Christ, shall (though they died Naturall bodies) rise Spirituall bodies; and then it is, that our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his Adversaries, and make a Spirituall Commonwealth. In the mean time, seeing there are no men on earth, whose bodies are Spirituall; there
can be no Spirituall Common-wealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unlesse wee call
Preachers, that have Commission to Teach, and prepare men for their reception into the
Kingdome of Christ at the Resurrection, a Common-wealth; which I have proved already to bee
none.
The third Argument is this; It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate an Infidel, or Hœreticall King, in case he endeavour to draw them to his Hœresie, or Infidelity. But to judge whether a
King draw his subjects to Hœresie, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore hath the Pope
Right, to determine whether the Prince be to be deposed, or not deposed.
To this I answer, that both these assertions are false. For Christians, (or men of what Religion
soever,) if they tolerate not their King, whatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning
Religion, doe violate their faith, contrary to the Divine Law, both Naturall and Positive: Nor is there any Judge of Hæresie amongst Subjects, but their owne Civill Soveraign: For Hœresie is
nothing else, but a private opinion, obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the
Publique Person (that is to say, the Representant of the Common-wealth) hath commanded to bee taught. By which it is manifest, that an opinion publiquely appointed to bee taught, cannot be Hæresie; nor the Soveraign Princes that authorize them, Hæretiques. For Hæretiques are
none but private men, that stubbornly defend some Doctrine, prohibited by their lawfull
Soveraigns.
But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate Infidell, or Hæreticall Kings, he alledgeth a
place in Deut. 17. where God forbiddeth the Jews, when they shall set a King over themselves, to choose a stranger: And from thence inferreth, that it is unlawfull for a Christian, to choose a
King, that is not a Christian. And 'tis true, that he that is a Christian, that is, hee that hath
already obliged himself to receive our Saviour when he shall come, for his King, shal tempt
God too much in choosing for King in this world, one that hee knoweth will endeavour, both by
terrour, and perswasion to make him violate his faith. But, it is (saith hee) the same danger, to
choose one that is not a Christian, for King, and not to depose him, when hee is chosen. To
this I say, the question is not of the danger of not deposing; but of the Justice of deposing him.
To choose him, may in some cases bee unjust; but to depose him, when he is chosen, is in no
case Just. For it is alwaies violation of faith, and consequently against the Law of Nature, which
is the eternall Law of God. Nor doe wee read, that any such Doctrine was accounted Christian
in the time of the Apostles; nor in the time of the Romane Emperours, till the Popes had the
Civill Soveraignty of Rome. But to this he hath replyed, that the Christians of old, deposed not
Nero, nor Dioclesian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arrian, for this cause onely, that they wanted Temporall forces. Perhaps so. But did our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve
Legions of immortall, invulnerable Angels to assist him, want forces to depose Cœsar, or at
least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him, delivered him to the Jews to bee
crucified? Or if the Apostles wanted Temporall forces to depose Nero, was it therefore
necessary for them in their Epistles to the new made Christians, to teach them (as they did) to
obey the Powers constituted over them, (whereof Nero in that time was one,) and that they
ought to obey them, not for fear of their wrath, but for conscience sake? Shall we say they did
not onely obey, but also teach what they meant not, for want of strength? It is not therefore
for want of strength, but for conscience sake, that Christians are to tolerate their Heathen
Princes, or Princes (for I cannot call any one whose Doctrine is the Publique Doctrine, an
Hæretique) that authorize the teaching of an Errour. And whereas for the Temporall Power of
the Pope, he alledgeth further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. 6.) appointed Judges under the Heathen Princes of those times, such as were not ordained by those Princes; it is not true. For St. Paul
does but advise them, to take some of their Brethren to compound their differences, as
Arbitrators, rather than to goe to law one with another before the Heathen Judges; which is a
wholsome Precept, and full of Charity, fit to be practised also in the best Christian Common-
wealths. And for the danger that may arise to Religion, by the Subjects tolerating of an
Heathen, or an Erring Prince, it is a point, of which a Subject is no competent Judge; or if bee
bee, the Popes Temporall Subjects may judge also of the Popes Doctrine. For every Christian
Prince, as I have formerly proved, is no lesse Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects, than the
Pope of his.
The fourth Argument, is taken from the Baptisme of Kings; wherein, that they may be made
Christians they submit their Scepters to Christ; and promise to keep, and defend the Christian
Faith. This is true; for Christian Kings are no more but Christs Subjects: but they may, for all
that, bee the Popes Fellowes; for they are Supreme Pastors of their own Subjects; and the
Pope is no more but King, and Pastor, even in Rome it selfe.
The fifth Argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed my sheep; by which
was given all Power necessary for a Pastor; as the Power to chase away Wolves, such as are
Hæretiques; the Power to shut up Rammes, if they be mad, or push at the other Sheep with
their Hornes, such as are Evill (though Christian) Kings; and Power to give the Flock
convenient food: From whence hee inferreth, that St. Peter had these three Powers given him
by Christ. To which I answer, that the last of these Powers, is no more than the Power, or
rather Command to Teach. For the first, which is to chase away Wolves, that is, Hæretiques,
the place hee quoteth is ( Matth. 7. 15.) Beware of false Prophets which come to you in Sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves. But neither are Hæretiques false Prophets, or at all Prophets: nor (admitting Hæretiques for the Wolves there meant,) were the Apostles
commanded to kill them, or if they were Kings, to depose them; but to beware of, fly, and
avoid them: nor was it to St. Peter, nor to any of the Apostles, but to the multitude of the Jews
that followed him into the mountain, men for the most part not yet converted, that hee gave
this Counsell, to Beware of false Prophets: which therefore if it conferre a Power of chasing
away Kings, was given, not onely to private men; but to men that were not at all Christians.
And as to the Power of Separating, and Shutting up of furious Rammes, (by which hee
meaneth Christian Kings that refuse to submit themselves to the Roman Pastor,) our Saviour
refused to take upon him that Power in this world himself, but advised to let the Corn and
Tares grow up together till the day of Judgment: much lesse did hee give it to St. Peter, or can
S. Peter give it to the Popes. St. Peter, and all other Pastors, are bidden to esteem those
Christians that disobey the Church, that is, (that disobey the Christian Soveraigne) as Heathen
men, and as Publicans. Seeing then men challenge to the Pope no authority over Heathen
Princes, they ought to challenge none over those that are to bee esteemed as Heathen.
But from the Power to Teach onely, hee inferreth also a Coercive Power in the Pope, over
Kings. The Pastor (saith he) must give his flock convenient food: Therefore the Pope may, and
ought to compell Kings to doe their duty. Out of which it followeth, that the Pope, as Pastor of
Christian men, is King of Kings: which all Christian Kings ought indeed either to Confesse, or
else they ought to take upon themselves the Supreme Pastorall Charge, every one in his own
Dominion.
His sixth, and last Argument, is from Examples. To which I answer, first, that Examples prove
nothing: Secondly, that the Examples he alledgeth make not so much as a probability of Right.
The fact of Jehoiada, in Killing Athaliah (2 Kings 11.) was either by the Authority of King Joash, or it was a horrible Crime in the High Priest, which (ever after the election of King Saul) was a
mere Subject. The fact of St. Ambrose, in Excommunicating Theodosius the Emperour, (if it
were true hee did so,) was a Capitall Crime. And for the Popes, Gregory 1. Greg. 2. Zachary,
and Leo 3. their Judgments are void, as given in their own Cause; and the Acts done by them
conformably to this Doctrine, are the greatest Crimes (especially that of Zachary) that are
incident to Humane Nature. And thus much of Power Ecclesiasticall; wherein I had been more
briefe, forbearing to examine these Arguments of Bellarmine, if they had been his, as a Private
man, and not as the Champion of the Papacy, against all other Christian Princes, and States.
Footnotes
1. I Kings 14. 26.
2. Acts, 4. 34.
3. John 4. 2.
4. 1 Cor. 1. 14, 16.
5. 1 Cor. 1. 17.
6. Dan. 9. 27.
CHAP. XLIII.
Of what is NECESSARY for a Mans Reception into the Kingdome of Heaven.
The difficulty of obeying God and Man both at once,
THE most frequent prætext of Sedition, and Civill Warre, in Christian Common-wealths hath a
long time proceeded from a difficulty, not yet sufficiently resolved, of obeying at once, both
God, and Man, then when their Commandements are one contrary to the other. It is manifest
enough, that when a man receiveth two contrary Commands, and knows that one of them is
Gods, he ought to obey that, and not the other, though it be the command even of his lawfull
Soveraign (whether a Monarch, or a soveraign Assembly,) or the command of his Father. The
difficulty therefore consisteth in this; that men when they are commanded in the name of God,
know not in divers Cases, whether the command be from God, or whether he that
commandeth, doe but abuse Gods name for some private ends of his own. For as there were in
the Church of the Jews, many false Prophets, that sought reputation with the people, by
feigned Dreams, and Visions; so there have been in all times in the Church of Christ, false
Teachers, that seek reputation with the people, by phantasticall and false Doctrines; and by
such reputation (as is the nature of Ambition,) to govern them for their private benefit.
Is none to them that distinguish between what is, and what is not Necessary to Salvation.
But this difficulty of obeying both God, and the Civill Soveraign on earth, to those that can
distinguish between what is Necessary, and what is not Necessary for their Reception into the Kingdome of God, is of no moment. For if the command of the Civill Soveraign bee such, as
that it may be obeyed, without the forfeiture of life Eternall; not to obey it is unjust; and the
precept of the Apostle takes place; Servants obey your Masters in all things; and, Children obey your Parents in all things; and the precept of our Saviour, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chaire, All therefore they shall say, that observe, and doe. But if the command be
such, as cannot be obeyed, without being damned to Eternall Death, then it were madnesse to
obey it, and the Counsell of our Saviour takes place, ( Mat. 10. 28.) Fear not those that kill the body, but cannot kill the soule. All men therefore that would avoid, both the punishments that are to be in this world inflicted, for disobedience to their earthly Soveraign, and those that
shall be inflicted in the world to come for disobedience to God, have need be taught to
distinguish well between what is, and what is not Necessary to Eternall Salvation.
All that is Necessary to Salvation is contained in Faith and Obedience.
All that is NECESSARY to Salvatian, is contained in two Vertues, Faith in Christ, and Obedience to Laws. The latter of these, if it were perfect, were enough to us. But because wee are all guilty of disobedience to Gods Law, not onely originally in Adam, but also actually by our own
transgressions, there is required at our hands now, not onely Obedience for the rest of our
time, but also a Remission of sins for the time past; which Remission is the reward of our Faith in Christ. That nothing else is Necessarily required to Salvation, is manifest from this, that the
Kingdome of Heaven is shut to none but to Sinners; that is to say, to the disobedient, or
transgressors of the Law; nor to them, in case they Repent, and Beleeve all the Articles of
Christian Faith, Necessary to Salvation.
What Obedience is Necessary;
The Obedience required at our hands by God, that accepteth in all our actions the Will for the
Deed, is a serious Endeavour to Obey him; and is called also by all such names as signifie that
Endeavour. And therefore Obedience, is sometimes called by the names of Charity, and Love, because they imply a Will to Obey; and our Saviour himself maketh our Love to God, and to
one another, a Fulfilling of the whole Law: and sometimes by the name of Righteousnesse; for Righteousnesse is but the will to give to every one his owne, that is to say, the will to obey the
Laws: and sometimes by the name of Repentance; because to Repent, implyeth a turning away
from sinne, which is the same, with the return of the will to Obedience. Whosoever therefore
unfeignedly desireth to fulfill the Commandements of God, or repenteth him truely of his
transgressions, or that loveth God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself, hath all the
Obedience Necessary to his Reception into the Kingdom of God: For if God should require
perfect Innocence, there could no flesh be saved.
And to what Laws.
But what Commandements are those that God hath given us? Are all those Laws which were
given to the Jews by the hand of Moses, the Commandements of God? If they bee, why are not
Christians taught to Obey them? If they be not, what others are so, besides the Law of Nature?
For our Saviour Christ hath not given us new Laws, but Counsell to observe those wee are
subject to that is to say, the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of our severall Soveraigns: Nor did
he make any new Law to the Jews in his Sermon on the Mount, but onely expounded the Laws
of Moses, to which they were subject before. The Laws of God therefore are none but the Laws
of Nature, whereof the principall is,