The fourth argument is taken from the baptism of kings;wherein,that they may be made Christians,they submit their sceptres to Christ,and promise to keep and defend the Christian faith.This is true;for Christian kings are no more but Christ's subjects:but they may,for all that,be the Pope's fellows;for they are supreme pastors of their own subjects;and the Pope is no more but king and pastor,even in Rome itself.
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 heretics;the power to shut up rams,if they be mad,or push at the other sheep with their horns,such as are evil,though Christian,kings;and power to give the flock convenient food:from whence he 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,heretics,the place he quoteth is,"Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing,but inwardly are ravening wolves."But neither are heretics false prophets,or at all prophets:nor (admitting heretics 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 he gave this counsel,to beware of false prophets:
which therefore,if it confer a power of chasing away kings,was given not only to private men,but to men that were not at all Christians.
And as to the power of separating and shutting up of furious rams,by which he 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 judgement:much less did he give it to St.
Peter,or can St.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 sovereign,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 be esteemed as heathen.
But from the power to teach only,he inferreth also a coercive power in the Pope over kings.The pastor,saith he,must give his flock convenient food:therefore food:therefore the pope may and ought to compel kings to do 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 confess,or else they ought to take upon themselves the supreme pastoral 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 allegeth make not so much as a probability of right.The fact of Jehoiada in killing Athaliah 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 Emperor,if it were true he did so,was a capital crime.And for the Popes,Gregory I,Gregory II,Zachary,and Leo III,their judgements 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 human nature.And thus much of power ecclesiastical;wherein I had been more brief,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.
