against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
any probabilitie in the world or to proue any thing else but his weakenesse wilfulnesse and folly in propounding and mainteining them 32. For albeit he teacheth out of Vasquez m Disput Theolog cap. 10. sec 2. num 7. vsque ad num 21. and others that of two opinions the lesse probable and lesse safe may securely be followed and that the opinion of a few yea of one approued Doctor sufficeth sometimes to make an opinion probable though many hold the contrary to that one Doctor to which purpose he filleth aboue a dozen pages of his booke with Vasquez his doctrine and text yet he is absurd in applying the same to this our case for although Vasquez doe teach n 1 a. 2 a. disp 62. cap. 1. nu 1. that a man may in doubtfull cases or questions securely follow the opinion of a few learned Doctours though the same be lesse safe and probable then the contrarie opinion held by many yet he is to be vnderstood to speake only of such disputable questions as my Aduersary Widdrington himselfe alleageth o Ibidem num 26. for example sake out of Vasquez to wit whether there are any habits infused by God alone concerning which question Vasquez saith p Vbi supra disp 79 cap. 1. disp 86. that albeit Pope Clement the fift did determine expressely in a Councell held at Vienna that there opinion who held that there are such habits is more probable then the negatiue yet it was neuer either by that decree or any other of Pope or Councell determined to be more then probable in which respect he doth not condemne the contrarie doctrine for heresie notwithstanding that he and the farre greater part of learned men do hold the other to be certainely true 33. So as Vasquez is to be vnderstood to speake of questions and opinions altogether vndecided and not of such a doctrine as ours touching the Popes power to depose Princes which as I haue said hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures and confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Popes and Councells as well Generall as Prouinciall as to omit the other mentioned in my Supplement q Cap. 2. num 76. 77. it is euident by the decree of the famous Councell of Lateran which expressely ordained the practise of it in some cases and did therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue the verity of the doctrine as I will clearely prooue r Cap. 15. nu 6. 7. 8. hereafter in this Reply and withall shew the ridiculous absurditie of Widdringtons arguments and instances against the same yea and conuince him Å¿ Ibidem num 9. 11. 12. euen by his owne testimonie to be falne to vse his owne words into errour or heresie for not beleiuing this doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleiued and ordained to be practised 34. In the meane time he is to vnderstand that whereas to shew the probabilitie of his doctrine he bringeth many Authors partly in his Theologicall Disputation and partly in his Apologie I remit him to D. Schulckenius who hath answered particularly to euery one of them and proued clearely that diuerse of them doe make flatly against him and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else Heretikes as it appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowne Schismatikes who liuing in the time of the Emperors or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so as of all the Authours that he hath scraped together to make some shew of probability in his doctrine he hath no one cleare and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same 35. And therefore seeing that all his pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authoritie of the Authors and partly in the sufficiencie as he supposeth of his answeres to our grounds arguments and authorities which answeres I shall haue occasion to confute in this Treatise and to shew them to be so farre from probabilitie that they are wholly impertinent and sometimes ridiculous for their absurdity therefore I conclude that he cannot any way cleere or excuse himselfe from the note of great temerity and grosse errour yea flat heresie if he bee obstinate in impugning our doctrine grounded vpon such assured and solid foundations as I haue here signified and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter as also I will put thee in minde good Reader oftentimes by the way to note how probably or rather to say truely how absurdly he argueth and answereth to the end thou maiest the better iudge how dangerous it will be for thee to venter thy soule vpon his pretence of probability which is no other but such as any heretike may haue for his doctrine 36. For all Heretikes doe thinke themselues and their followes as good and sufficient Doctors to make an opinion probable as he either is or esteemeth his Authors to be and they neuer want Scriptures and Fathers that seeme to them to confirme their opinions and doe make as probable answers to our obiections out of Scriptures and Fathers as hee doth and many times much more probable then he yea and they may either with his arguments and instances or other as probable as they impugne the authoritie of any decree of a General Councel be it neuer so expresse against them saying that the fathers who made it followed but a probable opinion and so might erre as you shal heare t Infra chap. 13. num 1. he answereth to the decree of the Councell of Lateran 37. And so you see that if is pretended probability be admitted against the common doctrine practise and decrees of the Church any heretike will not onely easily defend but also establish his heresie and any point of Catholike faith may easily be called in question made only probable and consequently doubtfull obnoxious to error and to be reiected by any man that list to embrace the contrary which truely I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether it bee not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all Heresie and Atheisme 38. This is my Aduersaries fourth admonition the substance whereof although I could haue comprised in few lines yet I thought good to set it downe entirely word by word as it lieth to the end the Reader may more plainely perceiue his fraudulent vncharitable and insufficient proceeding therein And first he declareth what is requisite to a probable argument Secondly he affirmeth that Vasquez doctrine which I related in my Theologicall Disputation for following of probable opinions is to be vnderstood to speak only of questions opinions altogether vndecided not of such a doctrine as theirs is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which hath beene taught by the learnedst men
of that singular opinion and of one onely Doctor and seeth it to bee grounded vpon the authoritie of one onely Doctor hee ought not to account it probable to this effect that he may prudently follow it in practise against his owne and the common opinion of all others 46 But if it be not a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour although the learned men of the contrarie opinion doe vrge for their doctrine some law decree or definition which the contrarie part hath seene and examined and hath in some sort answered therevnto it is lawfull for any learned man according to Vasquez to follow in practise that other lesse secure and lesse common opinion against his owne opinion albeit it be the more secure and common opinion For when we perceiue saith Vasquez that the Authors of the contrarie opinion haue seene and considered all the grounds and reasons for our opinion and haue obserued that obiection taken from that law or decree and haue endeauoured to answer them and that they were not convinced by them we may iustly thinke that we may prudently and lawfully follow in practise the opinion of those other men against our owne neither ought wee to suppose that our reasons are euident demonstrations and which doe make the contrarie opinion to be voide of all probabilitie 47 And this doctrine of Vasquez is euident in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope aboue a Generall Councell which hath been so long debated betwixt the Doctors of Rome and Paris For both of them affirme that their opinion is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is confirmed by the practise and decrees yea and definitions of Generall Councels and yet both of thē because they are approued by learned Catholike Diuines are probable although as Nauarra h In cap. Nouit de Iudicijs notab 3. nu 84. out of Ioannes Maior a learned Diuine of Paris relateth that the opinion of the Parishioners is not permitted to bee defended at Rome nor the opinion of the Romanes to bee defended at Paris And therefore into what fowle tearmes trow you would my Aduersarie breake if the Doctors of Paris who doe resolutely hold that the Pope is inferiour to a Generall Councell should argue against Card. Bellarmine and others of his opinion in the same manner as this fowle mouthed man who hath still in his mouth absurd ridiculous impertinent foolish impudent temerarious impious hereticall or erroneous that their doctrine hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also it is grounded vpon holy Scriptures confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Counsels but especially of the famous Councell of Constance which did not onely ordaine the practise of it in some cases and therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue but did also expressely define and consequently command all Christians to beleeue the verity of that doctrine and that therefore Card. Bellarmine is falne into heresie for not beleeuing that doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleeued defined and ordained to be practised and also to be beleeued 48 By this it is apparant that Vasquez doctrine is to be vnderstood generally of all cases questions and opinions which are in controuersie among learned Catholikes although one or both parts doe pretend their doctrine to be of faith and to be grounded vpon the authoritie of holy Scripture or some decree of Pope or Generall Councell and that learned Catholikes ought not according to Vasquez to bee easily condemned of temeritie and much lesse of errour or heresie who doe not follow the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of other Catholike Doctors although this common opinion seeme to some followers thereof to be an vndoubted doctrine and to be confirmed by some Decree Law or Canon of Pope or Generall Counsell which Decree Law or Canon those learned Catholikes haue seene examined and answered although their answeres doe not satisfie the contrarie side And conformably to this doctrine did Vasquez as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation dispute that question whether there be any habits which are infused by God alone For although he expressely affirmeth that it is the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of the Schoole-Diuines that there bee certaine vertues called Theologicall Faith Hope and Charitie which of their owne nature are infused by God alone and that some Doctors as Andreas Vega doe hold this doctrine to bee of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall or erroneous endeauouring to proue the same not out of the Councell of Vienna which did onely declare it to be the more probable opinion but out of the Councell of Trent yet Vasquez would not condemne the contrarie opinion not onely of heresie as my Aduersarie would cunningly perswade the Reader but not so much as of temeritie From whence I inferred that according to Vasquez doctrine which my Aduersarie fraudulently concealeth the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of Schoole-Diuines and which some of them thinke to be a point of faith may sometimes bee reiected without any note not onely of heresie or errour but also of temeritie which doctrine doth cleerely satisfie the common argument drawne from the authoritie of learned men who hold the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and consequently the oath to bee repugnant to faith and saluation And thus much concerning the first and second point of my Aduersaries fourth Admonition 49 As touching the third point it is apparantly vntrue and very iniurious to Catholikes and to Catholike Religion to affirme that the Arrians or any other heretikes may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for the establishing of their heresies then may I and those other Catholikes who hold it probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes For besides that the Arrian heresie was expressely condemned in the first eight Generall Counsels and afterwards in many others and the Arrians haue euer been accounted heretikes by ancient Fathers and all other Catholikes wheras there cannot be alledged so much as any shew or colour of any one definition of a Generall Councell wherein the doctrine which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is condemned for hereticall but all the proofes that my Aduersaries alledge that the Pope hath such a power are onely ouer-wrested similitudes facts examples inferences and supposisitions of their owne drawne from the authoritie of holy Scriptures Popes or Councels when the Philosophers and Diuines doe affirme that the authoritie of learned and skilfull men sufficeth to make the doctrine or opinion probable which they approue they vnderstand of learned and skilfull men approuing a doctrine belonging to the art which they professe according to that vulgar maxime vnicuique in sua arte perito credendum est we must giue credit to euery man skilfull in his art 50 So that in a point of Law the authoritie of skilfull Lawiers and not of skilfull Physitions in a point of Physike the
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith loyalty and spirituall allegeance which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and the Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power which he hath by the Law of God and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus 32. True it is that the Reader might the better vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose of temporals and to dispose of them himselfe are very different things and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other I brought a familiar example of one who either by promise or by some other obligation and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise and cleane omitteth the other obligation is bound to dispose and giue his goods or life at anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding power which he hath ouer him and them take them away and dispose of them without his consent but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command according as by vertue either of his promise or of some other obligation he is bound to doe the other may complaine to the Magistrate that hee will punish him for his offence or cause him to performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword and to haue a power to vse it or to depriue of the vse thereof are two different things neither doth one necessarily follow from the other although the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope as Pope can vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implieth a power to vse the same but onely that the Pope being a spirituall Prince or Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor of the spirituall kingdome Church of Christ 33. Thus therefore you haue seen that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same then he hath done For although it be cleere that the temporall sword is according to S. Bernard the Popes in some sort and doth belong to the Church in some sort which words in some sort D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke direction or declaratiue command of the Pope yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes and belongeth to the Pope in some sort that it is to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier and not of the Priest at the becke indeede of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour and that our Sauiour commanded and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard do plainly shew that according to S. Bernard the Pope as Pope cannot vse the temporal sword nor constrain a temporall Prince by vsing temporall punishments which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword 34. And for D. Barclay and Iohn of Paris to omit our learned Country-man Alexander of Hales whose words I related before p Num. 18. who doe giue the very same answere which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine heere doth make very small reckoning yet I do plainly confesse that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword and to dispose of all temporals in order to spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely then he hath done Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane but onely to the particular exposition which som few especially of late yeeres who haue scraped together all the authorities of Fathers Councells Scriptures facts and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie haue wrested out the words of the said Councel contrarie to the plaine sense of the words and the common vnderstanding of all ancient Diuines who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines and those also who not perceiuing their owne errour doe accuse others of the same to alleadge in confirmation of their opinions the holy Scriptures and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning and then to cry out against their brethren who mislike their opinions that they haue the holy Sriptures and sacred Councels on their side and that therefore their doctrine is of faith and the contrary hereticall and that their Aduersaries doe oppose themselues against the holy Scriptures and decrees of the Catholike Church whereas wee doe regard with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures sacred Councels and decrees of the Catholik Church the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense not in the letter or in the expositiō of any priuate Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors which he maintained cōcerning confession and absolution of whose authoritie neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
r Lib. 5. de Rō Pont. cap. 1. yet this rather confirmeth mee in my opinion For if his doctrine which denieth that the Pope as Pope hath power to depriue iuridically and by way of sentence temporall Princes of their dominions and to vse the temporall sword had beene thought in those daies to haue beene hereticall or erronious as now Card. Bellarmine and some few other Iesuites will needes haue it to be it is like that he should also haue beene compelled to recall that doctrine and that those learned Authors who write of heresies as Alphonsus de Castro Prateolus Genebrard D. Sanders and others would for the same haue taxed him and Marsilius of Padua as also Albericus and those many Schoolemen and Doctours related by Trithemius and Almaine who did defend the same doctrine with some note of heresie or errour which seeing they haue not done it is a manifest signe that they did not account that doctrine for hereticall or erronious that the decree of the Councel of Lateran which was long before any of these mens daies and which was also so publike and registred in the corps of the Canon Law was not in those times vnderstood in that sense as Card. Bellarmine now of late for before in his controuersies he made small reckoning of that authority for that he cleane omitteth that decree yet bringing many particular facts of Popes yea of Pope Innocēt the third in whose time and by whose authoritie that Councell was held and some few others without sufficient proofe as I will shew beneath ſ Part. 3. ca. 9. seq will needes haue that decree to be vnderstood 36. Neither is that true which D. Schulckenius affirmeth that Ioannes Parisiensis in acknowledging That when the Pope doth becken the Emperour ought to exercise the iurisdiction of the secular power for the spirituall good But if hee will not or if it doth not seeme to him expedient the Pope hath no other thing to do because he hath not the materiall sword in command but onely the Emperour according to S. Bernard dooth either speake of the direct power of the Pope to vse them materiall sword or else contradict himselfe when afterwards hee writeth that the Pope may per accidens depose the Emperour by causing the people to depose him For Ioannes Parisiensis in that his Treatise de potestate Regia Papali doth expresly impugne both the direct and indirect coerciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence and iuridically with temporall punishments affirming as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth that Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment is the last which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict For although it belongeth to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to bring men backe to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not this but according to the way or meanes giuen him by God which is by excluding from the Sacraments and the participation of the faithfull 37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore contradict himselfe in affirming that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people For although he be of opinion as I shewed before t Part. 1. ca. 2. that the people haue in some cases a coerciue power ouer their Prince and in some cases may depose him and consequently the Pope may in those cases if it be necessarie to the good of the Church command the people and with spirituall punishments compell them to vse their coerciue power and so the Pope may be said to depose a Prince per accidens by meanes of the people with which philosophicall question I will not at this time as I often said intermeddle yet concerning the Popes coerciue power to vse him selfe the temporall sword or to depose the Emperour by way of iuridicall sentence which is not repugnant to his authoritie to depose by meanes of the people if the people haue any such authoritie to depose which many learned Diuines to whose opinion the ancient Fathers seeme to assent as I haue signified heretofore doe denie u in my Apologie nu 411. and here part 1. cap. 3. nu 5. Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellarmines opinion and expressely affirmeth that the Pope hath no power to depriue iuridically or by way of sentence temporall Princes of their kingdomes but only to inflict by way of coercion or constraint Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authoritie and also the Reply which D. Schulckenius hath made therevnto 38 Now to the authoritie of Pope Boniface the 8. I answer first that his words are to be vnderstood in that sense as I expounded S. Bernard whom hee as Card Bellarmine affirmeth did imitate to wit that the temporall power is in order to spirituall good or which is all one in spirituall things subiect to the command of the spirituall power and that shee is to be instructed by the spirituall not absolutely in temporall gouernment but in Christian faith and religion and that if shee goe out of the way or erre in things belonging to Christian faith and religion shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual but with spirituall not temporall punishments And in this sense it is very true that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but by this it is onely signified that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in meere temporals subiect to the spirituall command and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours 39 Secondly although Pope Boniface should vnderstand those words in this sense that temporall Princes are not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls subiect to the Popes power both to command and also to punish temporally yet his authoritie herein as he is Pope for as he is a priuate Doctor it is no greater then of other Doctors is not of any great weight considering first that as well obserueth D. Duvall x De suprema Rom. Pont. potest part 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263 a learned Schoole-Diuine one of the Kings Readers in the Colledge of Sorbon although Pope Boniface doth make mention both of the spirituall and temporall sword and in the progresse of his Constition doth say that the temporall sword is vnder the spirituall yet in the definition or conclusion which chiefely as in the decrees of Councells is to be regarded seeing that this onely bindeth to beleeue this onely hee pronounceth in generall but we declare say define and pronounce that it is necessarie to the saluation of euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome But in what manner all men must be subiect it is not expressed in this definition and therefore not to contradict this definition it is sufficient to affirme that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to command and to punish s piritually 40 Secondly for that this Extrauagant was recalled by his Successour Pope Clement the fift in
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo◠bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in
the priueledge it selfe is named King at whose instance S. Gregorie saith he granted that priueledge Baronius might with the same reason haue affirmed that not only the subscription but also the priueledge it selfe was afterwards made and adioyned to S. Gregories Epistles which without doubt Baronius would quickly haue acknowledged if it had not beene for those words honore suo priuetur which hee thought made greatly for the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that vpon far weaker grounds hee sticketh not to deny oftentimes priueledges and antiquities which neuer before were called in question 12. And although Pope Gregorie the seuenth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Metz doth not cite this priueledge of S. Gregorie granted to the Monasterie of S. Meâ—ard which is no small coniecture that this priueledge was not extant in those daies among the Epistles of S. Gregorie for otherwise it bearing so great a shew of being authenticall by the subscription of 30 Bishops and the King and Queene of France who were witnesses thereunto it would by all likelihood haue beene cited by Pope Gregorie the seuenth but an other priueledge granted to an other Monasterie by S Gregorie in his Epistle to one Senator Abbot Å¿ Lib. 11. epist epist 10. wherin S. Gregorie did not say honore suo priuetur let him be depriued of his honour but potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want or I desire he may want not his honour but the worthinesse of his power and honour which words are not so forcible to prooue the Popes authoritie to depriue Kings of their princely honour and power but at the most to declare them to bee vnworthy of it for some crime committed by them and to be worthy also to be damned in hell with Iudas the Traitor for that many a one may be a true King and haue princely power and honour who is vnworthy thereof Neuerthelesse besides that the aforesaid words do containe no sentence of depriuation but onely a curse or imprecation which kinde of imprecations euen containing anathema was frequent in the priueledges granted by Lay-men yea and vpon sepulchres that men should be fearefull to violate them as Baronius t Ad an 1097. Num. 51. relateth also this priueledge mentioned in S. Gregories epistle to Senator is not so authenticall both for that it hath neither date of any yeare or day when it was written nor subscription of any witnesse which by likelihood it would haue had if there had beene any authenticall copie thereof and also for that the Authour of the booke intituled de vnitate Ecclesiae who is thought to be Venericus Bishop of Vercellis and liued in Pope Gregorie the seuenth his time answering that epistle of Pope Gregorie the seuenth to the Bishop of Metz doth bouldly affirme that those words potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the worthinesse of his power and honour were not in those daies extant among the workes of S. Gregorie Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue what weake demonstrations and authorities Card. Bellarmine doth so often inculcate to conuince this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Painces to be a point of faith 13 Thirdly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to those most famous French writers whom I related before But although it be true that the most part of those seuenteene French writers related by Card Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Schulckenius against me are of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes this neuerthelesse may also be true which Petrus Pithaeus affirmeth to wit that France vnderstanding thereby the State of France hath euer held the the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdom May it not truly be said that the Kingdome and State of England hath from the first yeere of Queene Elizabeths reigne euen to this present time held that the Catholike Romane Religion is not the true Religion notwithstanding that not onely seuenteene but seuenteene thousands there haue been of English Catholikes since the first beginning of hir reigne till now who haue held the contrarie wherefore when Petrus Pithaeus affirmed that France hath euer held that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King by France hee did not vnderstand euery particular French-man but the State and temporall Gouernours of the Kingdome of France which his assertion is also confirmed by the State and Parliament of Paris first in the censuring of Card Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay then in burning his Schulckenius written against me afterwards in condemning Suarez booke against his Maiesties Apologie for maintayning so stifly this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls which they call a scandalous and seditious a damnable and pernicious doctrine and now lastly by the decree of the Parliament of Paris the second of Ianuarie of this present yeere 1615 wherein it is ordained that it shall not bee held for problematique and also by the new oath of allegiance like vnto that of ours but that ours is more sweete and more modest as the Cardinall du Peron u Pag. 100. affirmeth which those of the lower house of the generall assembly of all the States of France whom the same Cardinall du Peron in his speech to them confesseth to be Catholikes x Pag. 96. endeauoured to haue made for a fundamentall Law 14 Lastly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to reason it is repugnant to the principles of the Catholike faith For if the Subiects of the King of France be bound to obey their King being excommunicated and that they can not be absolued from this obedience by the Pope it followeth that either the King of France can not be bound by Christ his Vicar with the bond of ExcoÌ„munication or that his Subiects can not be loosed from the bond of their allegiance and obedience Both are repugnant to the words of Christ who said to his Vicar whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed also in heauen Neither did Christ except the King of France or his Subiects and who hath excepted them I can not tell This I know that no man could by right except them and whosoeuer will not be subiect to the keyes of the Church I know and with a cleare voice I doe pronounce that hee will neither bee a Christian nor can â—â—e appertaine to the kingdome of Christ 15 Great words to small purpose For although it be true that Card Bellarmine Suarez and some few others are or seeme to be of opinion that it is against reason and against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes yet it is also true that other learned Catholikes are of opinion that it is neither against reason nor against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold
heard of before for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie not to say an heresie and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor a Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. concerning this point betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it saith Trithemius and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie saith Almainus and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine saith Pithaeus and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris to omit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen doth most clearely confirme the same it is neither reason nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme for impugning that new doctrine and practise which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God And therefore many complained saith Azâ—â— in the same place that Gregorie the seuenth did depriâ—e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire 24 For although the Bishops of Rome saith Onuphrius a man as Posseuine confesseth of exceeding great reading and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories were before honoured as the heads of Christian Religion and the Vicars of Christ and the Successours of Peter yet their authoritie was not extended any farther then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith But yet they were subiect to the Emperours all things were done at the Emperours backe they were created by them and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge or decree any thing concerning them Gregorie the seuenth the first of all the Bishops of Rome being aided with the forces of the Nortmans trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis a woman most potent in Italie and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes who were at ciuill warre among them selues contrarie to the custome of his ancestours contemning the authoritie and power of the Emperour when hee had gotten the Popedome did presume I doe not say to excommunicate but also to depriue the Emperour by whom if he was not chosen he was at the least confirmed of his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before that age For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius Anastasius Leo Iconomachus I do nothing regard Thus Onuphrius b Lib 4. de varia creat Rom Pont. 25 Lastly it is also true that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie and Pope Paschalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church or the Catholike Romane Church as D. Schulckenius affirmeth vnlesse by the Catholike Church or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls and Diuines of Rome who are appointed by the Pope for the examining permitting and forbidding of bookes which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church is altogether vntrue Neither is it knowne for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card Bellarmine haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls and especially of Card Bellarmine who hath been pleased to be a Iudge witnesse and accuser in his owne cause been prohibited and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith but the cause wherefore they are forbidden is not therein expressed neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand of what crime either in particular or in generall I am to purge my selfe although in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoe c The 24. of Iune 1614. I haue most humbly and instantly desired it and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue that they haue no small distrust in their cause and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith as Card Bellarmine and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue 26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes wherefore bookes may be forbidden and which in generall are reduced to these two heads either that they are repugnant to faith or else to good manners which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight do in so large yet doubtfull a manner extend that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie but some Correctour or other may easily except against it as those bookes are to be corrected which are against Ecclesiasticall libertie immunitie and Iurisdiction so that if a Canonist be the Corrector he will haue that blotted ouâ— which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes c. vnlesse it can be proued that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine Neither can Card Baronius nor Card Bellarmine be excused from greeuous detraction in charging Sigebert who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned vertuous and religious Catholike with that execrable crime of schisme for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account vnlesse they can proue that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church or disobey the Popes command as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church and the Successour of S. Peter 27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope and whether those who adhere to a false Pope perswading themselues for probable reasons that hee is the true and lawfull Pope are to be condemned of Schisme and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof This only at this present I will demand that if to reiect the testimonie of Sigebert or any such like Authour it be sufficient without any other proofe to say as Mr Fitzherbert answereth that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many others of the contrarie side that they liuing in the time of the Popes who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours for this hath euer been a great controuersie saith Azor betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other wrote partially in their fauour May
which hee appealed to Caesar was spirituall d In tract contra Barcl cap. 3 pag. 51. which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in another place e Lib 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. that S. Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar and did acknowledge him for his Iudge when he was accused of raysing sedition and tumults in the people And moreouer to omit sundry other his contradictions that the Church of Christ is compounded f See aboue cap. 2. of spirituall and temporall power as a man is compounded of soule and body and that the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth doe make one totall body whereof the Pope is head as a man is compounded of bâ—dy and soule which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in other places that the Church of Christ is compounded onely of spirituall power and that the Pope if wee will speake properly hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 18 But secondly although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour therefore sonnes are free c. were meant of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar and not to the temple yet Card. Bellarmine himselfe did in the former Editions of his Controuersies giue therevnto a very sufficient answer and which in his latter Editions he hath not confuted For thus he writeth g lib. 1. de Clericis Cap. 28. I answer first that this place doth not conuince for otherwise he should exempt from tributes all Christians who are regenerate by Baptisme Secondly I answer that our Sauiour doth speake onely of himselfe For he maketh this Argument The sonnes of Kinges are free from tributes because they neither pay tribute to their fathers for that the goods of the parents and children are common nor to other Kings because they are not subiect to them but I am the sonne of the first and chiefest King therefore I owe tribute to no man Wherfore when our Sauiour saith therefore Sonnes are free from thence hee meant onely to gather this that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men hee affirmed nothing 19 Thus answered Card. Bellarmine in times past when he followed the opinion of the Diuines concerning the exemption of Clergy men against the Canonists who vrged this place of holy Scriptue to proue that Clergy men are exempted from paying of tributes by the law of God But now forsooth he forsaketh the Diuines and this very text therefore sonnes are free which then hee brought for an obiection against his opinion and cleerely answered the same he bringeth now for a chiefe ground to proue his new opinion and which is very remarkable hee concealeth the answer which he then made to the said obiection onely hee addeth this that when the sonnes of Kings are exempted from tribute not onely their owne persons but also their seruants and Ministers and so their families are exempted from tributes But it is certaine that all Clergie men do properly appertaine to the family of Christ who is the sonne of the King of Kings And this our Lord did seeme to signifie when hee said to S. Peter But that wee may not scandalize them finding the stater take it and giue it for me and thee As though he should say that both hee and his family whereof S. Peter was a chiefe gouernour ought to bee free from tributes Which also S. Hierome doth seeme to haue vnderstood in his Commentary of that place when hee saith that Clergy men doe not pay tributes for the honour of our Lord and are as Kings children free from tributes and S. Austin lib. 1. qq Euang. q. 23. where he writeth that in euery earthly Kingdome the children of that Kingdome vnder which are all the Kingdomes of the earth ought to be free not are free as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth S. Austin to say from tributes 20 Thus you see how Card. Bellarmine runneth vp and downe from the words of holy Scripture by which it is demonstrated saith he that S. Peter was not bound to pay tribute to Caesar to the sense which he himselfe disproueth and then from the sense to his priuate collections and inferences that if S. Peter was free all the Apostles were free and if all the Apostles all Cleargie men But if it had pleased him to haue also set downe the answere which in the former Editions of his bookes he made to this obiection the Reader would easily haue perceiued that from this place of holy Scripture no sufficient reason could be gathered to cause him to recall his former opinion although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour were meant of the tribute which was to be paide to Caesar of which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine will not haue them to be vnderstood but onely of the tribute which the children of Israell were by the law of God Exod. 30. commanded to pay for their soules vnto the vse of the tabernacle of testimonie for at that time the temple was not built For first saith he if this argument did conuince not onely Cleargie men but also all Christians who being regenerate by baptisme are the children of Christ and also doe properly appertaine to his spirituall familie or Church of which S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles vnder him were chiefe gouernours should be exempted from paying tributes Secondly our Sauiour saith he doth speake onely of himselfe who was the sonne of the first and chiefest King and that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men he affirmeth nothing 21 Thirdly to the authority of S. Hierome he answereth that S. Hierome did not intend in that place to proue out of the Gospell that Cleargie men are free from tribute but onely he doth bring a certaine congruence wherefore they are freed by the decrees of Priâ—ces for therefore he saith that they doe not pay tributes as the children of the Kingdome and he addeth an other cause to wit the honor of Christ for he saith that for his honour Cleargie men doe not pay tributs Therfore not the law of God but the decrees of Princes made for the honour of Christ haue exempted Cleargy men Thus Card. Bellarmine 22 Fourthly to the authority of S. Augustine he answereth that although Iansenius whom Salmeron and Suarez doe follow doth affirme that S. Austen by the children of the supreme kingdome did vnderstand the naturall children of God and that he spake in the plurall number to obserue the manner of our Sauiours spech so that the meaning of S. Austen was that all the naturall sonnes of God if it were possible that God could haue more naturall sonnes then one should be exempted from paying of earthly tributes yet Card. Bellarmine doth not like well of this answere and therefore he thinketh the answere of Abulensis to be the more probable that S. Austen did not vnderstand naturall children but Clergie men and Monkes who as also S. Hierome affirmeth in Cap. 17 Mat. were and are
vertue of Religion in vsing their power vnlawfully but they should not sinne for doing that which they haue no power to doe as hee who is no Priest or Bishop should in consecrating or giuing orders offend for that the power of a Priest to consecrate and of a Bishop to giue orders cannot either wholly or in part bee taken away from them by the Pope So likewise although a spirituall Pastor should for iust cause forbid a temporall Prince who is his spirituall child and subiect to excercise his Regall power and authority ouer Clergy men if that temporall Prince should heerein transgresse the command of his spirituall Pastor supposing it to bee lawfull hee should indeed offend against religion in vsing his Regall power and authority contrary to the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastor which command was imposed for the motiue of Religion neuerthelesse hee should not offend against iustice in doing that which hee hath no power and authority to doe in that manner as another man who is not their Prince should by depriuing them of their goods or punishing their persons if they transgresse the lawes offend For that it is not in the power of a spirituall Pastor to depriue a temporall Prince either wholly or in part of his Regall power and temporall Soueraignty 40 Wherefore if wee respect the power it selfe and the vertue of legall or morall iustice a temporall Prince hath full ample and supreme royall power and authority ouer Clergy men notwithstanding that his spirituall Pastor should for iust cause command him not to exercise his Regall power vpon the persons of Clergie men who doe offend his lawes but if wee respect rhe vse and execution of the power and the vertue of religion the vse indeed of his power in the aforesaid case is so limited by the lawfull command of the spirituall Pastor that the Prince vsing his power ouer Clergy men sinneth against Religion for that hee disobeyeth the lawfull command of his spirituall Superiour which was imposed for the motiue of religion but not against iustice for that hee doth not excercise his Regall power but vpon those who are his Subiects and doe owe vnto him true loyalty and temporall obedience 41 And truely if the aforesaid obiection were of force that the temporall Prince hath no power or authority ouer Clergie men who are subiect to him in temporalls against the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour because he hath no power to sinne it would likewise follow that a suspended Bishop or Priest haue no power to giue orders or to consecrate because they haue no power to sinne and a penitent hath no lawfull right or power to sell or giue away his goods against the lawfull command of his Ghostly Father because he hath no power to sinne and a man hath no power or right to giue money to a dishonest end or to giue away his goods prodigally and consequently they should be restored back againe because he hath no power to sinne I will say nothing at this time how farre Cleargie men either by the priuiledges of Christan Princes or by the Ecclesiasticall Canons are de facto exempted both in their goods and in their persons from ciuill powers but onely I thought good at this time to set downe the true state of the question among Catholikes concerning the authority of spirituall Pastours to exempt Cleargie men from the temporall power of Christian Princes that thereby they may clearely perceiue what kinde of argument may be drawne from the exemption of Cleargie men to proue the Popes power to depose Princes and by way of sentence to depriue them wholy of their Regall authoritie 42 Thus you haue seene in what manner temporall thinges are subiect to spirituall temporall endes to spirituall endes temporall power to the spirituall power the temporall sword to the spirituall sword the flesh to the spirit the Moone to the Sunne and temporall Princes to spirituall Pastors and that from the subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall no good argument can be brought to proue that the Pope by vertue of his spirituall power can dispose of temporalls depose temporall Princes or punish temporally by way of coercion but onely that in order to spirituall good he can command temporalls and punish temporally by way of command but by way of coercion onely with spirituall and not with temporall punishments And by this which hath bene saide the Reader may easily vnderstand the true sense and meaning of a certaine proposition which Card. Bellarmine in his Schulckenius doth often inculcate as though there were some great mystery lye hidden therein to proue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes to wit that a Christian Prince is a child of the Church and subiect to the Pope not onely as he is a Christian man but also as he is a Christian Prince and the same he affirmeth of a Christian â—awyer of a Christian Souldier of a Christian Physitian and so of the rest 43 For all these three propositions A Christian Prince as he is a Christian Prince is a child of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours A Christian Prince as he is a Christian is a Child of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours and a Prince as he is a Christian is a Childe of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours haue one and the selfe same sense and so likewise of a Christian Lawier of a Christian Soldier of a Christian Physitian c. For the true meaning of them all is that Christianitie and not Regall authority or the knowledge of lawe warfare or Physicke is the cause why a Prince a Lawier a Soldier a Physitian and all other men of what trade soeuer they be are Children of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours and that therefore they are to be directed and instructed by spirituall Pastours not precisely in the rules of ciuill gouernment in the rules of lawe warfare or Physicke but onely in the rules and principles of Christian doctrine and how they ought to gouerne ciuilly and vse their knowledge and trades according to the rules and precepts of Christian Religion which if they refuse to doe they may be corrected and punished by spirituall Pastours with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall punishments 44 But from hence it doth not follow that either temporall power the knowledge of the lawe warfare or physicke are among Christians per se subiect to the spirituall power but onely per accidens as I haue often declared and in those thinges which doe concerne or belong to Christian Religion or that spirituall Pastours can by vertue of their spirituall power correct or punish Christian Princes Lawiers Soldiers Physitians c. by depriuing them by way of sentence of their Regall authoritie of their skill and knowledge in the lawes in warfare or Physicke which they did not receiue from the spirituall power but onely by depriuing them of the Sacraments and such like spirituall benifites of which they
not Popes haue their flatterers and who doe attribute vnto them more ample authoritie then is fitting as of the Canonists Pope Pius the fift affirmed to that learned Nauarre d in cap. Non liceat 12. q. 2. § nu 6. as well as Kings and Emperours See aboue cap 3. nu 6. what Parisiensis saith of this flattering 20 Wherefore to make an end of these Authorities I will onely request the iudicious Reader that he will be pleased to consider these two things first the reasons which I brought both in my Apologie e Num. 449. and also in my f Cap. 3. sec 3. nu 15. seq Theologicall Disputation which D. Schulckenius passeth ouer with silence why there are to be found so few Authours at this present whose writings are now extant who deny the Popes authoritie to depose Princes in comparison of those who doe maintaine the same which being duely considered the Reader will easily perceiue that it is a great maruaile to finde in any Catholike booke any one sentence or clause which seemeth any way to call in question this temporall authoritie of the Pope and neuerthelesse there are at this present and euer haue been as I haue clearely shewed before many vertuous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding all the clamours and threatnings of our ouer-violent Aduersaries are of this opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie to depriue Kings and Princes of their temporall dominions 21 The second is that if the doctrine of that learned Nauarre an excellent Diuine and most skilfull in the Law sayth Posseuine of Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Aurea armilla of Gabriel Vasquez g See the Preface nu 40. 43. and of other Diuines be true that in the Court of conscience it be sufficient to this effect that we shall commit no sinne to choose his opinion for true whom for good cause we thinke to be a man sufficiently learned end of a good conscience and that no man is bound to follow alwayes the better opinion but it sufficeth to follow that opinion which some skilfull Doctors thinke to be true how much the more may our Catholike Countrimen prudently perswade themselues that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes which doctrine not onely one learned and vertuous man but very many with the State of France do approue and who also haue diligently read examined and abundantly answered all the reasons arguments and authorities which their learned Aduersaries haue obiected to the contrarie And this I hope may suffice for the first part and for clearing all those authorities which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation from all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath taken against them Now wee will examine the reasons and intrinsecall grounds of this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes THE SECOND PART Wherein ALL THE PRINCIPALL ARGVments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power together with the Replyes which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same are exactly examined Chap. 1. The true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power is declared 1. BEcause my Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert and all the rest who doe so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes doe much rely vpon the vnion and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall as vpon a principall proofe grounded vpon the light of reason before I come to examine the particular points of his Reply I thinke it not amisse for the better vnderstanding of what shall be said hereafter by either of vs concerning this subordination or vnion to declare in what sort these two powers are among Christians united and subordained and what a weake ground this subordination is to proue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls and to punish temporally by way of coercion or constraint And to proceede orderly herein and that the Reader may clearely perceiue what is the true state of the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine and not be caried away with a confuse concept of I know not what kinde of vnion and subordination I will first set downe that which is certain and out of question and then what is in controuersie betweene vs concerning this vnion and subordination 2. First therefore I agree with Card. Bellarmine in this that the ciuill or temporall power of it owne nature and being considered precisely by it selfe is a distinct power from the spirituall and no way subiect or subordained to it as in my Apologie a Num. 132. seq nu 150. 153. 154. I affirmed out of Card. Bellarmine but they are two seuerall distinct and disunited powers and not depending one of the other and haue distinct ends distinct functions distinct lawes distinct punishments distinct Magistrates and Princes And this is very apparant partly in infidell Countries where there is true ciuill or temporall power saith Card. Bellarmine b Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. without any order or reference to any true Ecclesiasticall or spirit all power and partly in the time of the Apostles who had true and perfect spirituall power without 〈◊〉 true supreme temporall or ciuill authoritie And from hence it followeth that as the supreme spirituall Prince or Pastour is subiect to none in spirituall â—o also the supreme temporall Prince is subiect to none in temporalls 3. Secondly we do also agree in this that although among Christians the temporall and spirituall power do still remaine two distinct supreme powers for that the Mediatour betwixt God and men Christ Iesus hath also by proper actions and distinct dignities distinguished either power as Pope Nicholas the first doth well affirme c In epst ad Michaâ—lem Imp. Cum ad verum dist 96. yet they are so vnited and conioyned together among Christians that temporall authoritie and spirituall authoritie temporall authoritie and spirituall subiection temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection may be vnited and conioined at one or diuerse times in one and the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man may be both a temporall and also a spirituall Prince as we see in the Pope who by the institution of Christ is the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Church and by the consent of Christian Princes and people is become also a temporall Prince the same Christian man may be both a temporall Prince and also a spirituall subiect as are all Christian Princes who as Princes are supreme in temporalls and as Christians are subiect in spirituals to the spirituall Pastour of Christs Church the same Christian man may bee both a temporall and also a spirituall subiect as are other Christians whatsoeuer and whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and yet a temporall subiect dependeth on that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted