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
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
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
to the Germans or French by the Popes sole authoritie but by the consent suffrages and authoritie also of the people which neuerthelesse are principall authorities which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Finally others although they be of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for heresie or which is a farre different question to declare them to be deposed for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause but doth absolutely in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good extend this pretended authoritie 19. Neither is it true that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion as M. Fitzherbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affirmeth I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua for that not onely his booke but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes And although I had vrged his authority in that sort as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe not for that I thinke the authority of an heretike barely considered by it selfe to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith but for that Marsilius writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies he should by Catholike Authours who write of heresies as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others bee particularly taxed of those heresies and yet his doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes which was the principall subiect of his booke should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous for this is a forcible argument that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine 20. True also it is that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion for that hee vehemently impugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes both against Pope Gregorie the seuenth and also Paschalis the second calling it a noueltie not to say an heresie and answering as he saith with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power But Sigebert saith D. Schulckenius was a Schismatike and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth and Paschalis the second are condemned by the Catholike Romane Church But truly it is strange and greatly to be lamented to see some Catholikes now adaies especially who professe sanctitie of life and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame and slander other Catholikes who dislike their opinions or proceedings with such enormious crimes as are Schisme heresie and Apostacie What reason had Card. Baronius of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same to call Sigebert a Schismatike he being by no other Authour that I haue read before Baronius charged with that heinous crime but was euer reputed a learned vertuous and religious Catholike truely I cannot in any wise perceiue Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church or a refusing to obey the Pope as he is the visible head of the Church and Christ his Vicegerent on earth 21 For obserue diligently saith Card. Caietane y 2a 2a q. 39. ar 2. in resp ad 2m that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies First in regard of the thing commanded Secondly in regard of the person commanding and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge or commander For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence to wit for that he will not fulfill that which the Pope hath commanded as to abstaine from such a warre to restore such a State c. although hee should most greiuously sinne yet he is not for this a Schismatike For it falleth out and that often that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthelesse to be his Superior For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence but also his immediate iudgement or sentence being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme nor any other crime For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things and to be warie of dangers And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically so much the easier by how much he is more potent and feareth no reuenger on earth But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sentence in regard of his office not acknowledging him to be his Superiour although he do beleiue he is then properly he is a Schismatike And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope or of the Church so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him to acknowledge him for Superiour c. Thus Card. Caietane 22. Now what Authour euer said that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape and not Gregorie to be the true and lawful Pope True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some as Trithemius z In verbo Sigebertus relateth for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church wrote letters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth whih did not become his profession but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church or that he refused to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church and in deposing Gregorie and creating Guibert Pope neither D. Schulckenius nor any other is able to prooue out of any ancient or moderne writer 23. True also it is that Sigebert was of this opinion that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Emperour and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Gregorie and answered as hee saith all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour and refused to obey Pope Gregories command wherein hee strictly ordained that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour But considering that the doctrine for the Popes power to dethrone temporall Princes and the practise thereof was then new in the Church of God and neuer
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
Princes who in things temporal are supreme and subiect to none but God So also there be only two subiections and obediences answerable thereunto to wit spirituall and temporall So that if such a power or obedience be not spirituall it must of necessitie be temporall and with the same certaintie or probabilitie that one is perswaded such an authoritie not to be spirituall he must be perswaded that it is temporall That authoritie is spirituall and due onely to the Pope which Christ hath giuen to his Church and the spirituall Pastours thereof All other supreme authoritie is temporall and due only to temporall Princes And therefore if it be probable as in very deede it is and as you may see it in this Treatise clearely conuinced so to be that the Pope hath no authority giuen him by Christ to depose Princes it is consequently probable that the aforesaid authoritie if there be any such authoritie on earth to depose Princes is not spirituall but temporall and that therfore whosoeuer granteth it to the Pope doth giue to him that obedience which is due to temporall Princes and consequently he doth against the expresse command of Christ not render to God and Caesar that which is their due 3. Well then thus you see that if the Pope should challenge that obedience as due to him by the institution of Christ which Christ hath not giuen him and which consequently is due only to temporall Princes he should vsurpe that authority which he hath not in so doing he should transgresse the law of God and Nature and those subiects who should adhere to him and yeeld him that pretended spirituall obedience should also transgresse the law of Christ and be not only pretended but true Traitors both to God and their Prince in not acknowledging their Prince to be their true Soueraigne by yeelding that obedience which is due to him to an other and so by taking from him his supreme power or soueraingtie and giuing it to an other Prince which in very deed is to take the Diademe which doth signifie his supreme authoritie off from his head and place it vpon the head of an other 4. Now there is none of you as I suppose of so meane vnderstanding that can imagine that the Pope is so infallible in his opinion iudgement or any declaratiue command grounded thereon as that he can not possibly erre therein and challenge that authority as due to him by the institution of Christ which neuerthelesse Christ hath not giuen him but it belongeth only to temporall Princes This you may see by experience in Pope Boniface the eight who pretended that Philip the faire the most Christian KING of France was subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and declared them to be heretikes who should beleeue the contrarie and that he was a temporall Monarch of the Christians world and therefore that the kingdome of France by reason of the disobedience and rebellion of Philip their King was falne into the handes of the See Apostolike for which cause Pope Boniface was taxed by many learned Catholikes of great impudencie pride and arrogancie and his extrauagant Vnam Sanctam which he made to curbe the said King of France declaring that the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall and temporall power to spirituall authoritie was reuersed by Pope Clement the fift the next Successour but one to Pope Boniface who declared that by the definition and declaration of Pope Boniface in his extrauagant Vnam SanctaÌ„ no preiudice should arise to the King and kingdome of France and that by it neither the King kingdom or inhabitants of France should be more subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things should be vnderstood to be in the same state wherin they were before the said definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King Kingdome and Inhabitants of France The like temporall authoritie Pope Sixtus the fift if he had liued would also haue challenged for that as I haue been credibly informed by diuers Iesuites of good account who then liued at Rome hee did intend to suppresse Card. Bellarmines first Tome of Controuersies because he did not with the Canonists grant to the Pope this direct temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world 5 So that the onely controuersie now is whether the Pope hath de facto erred or no in declaring the oath of allegiance to be vnlawful and to containe in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation vpon this supposall that it is a point of Faith that the Pope hath authoritie giuen him by Christ to depose Princes which is the substance of the oath as Fa Suarez a Lib 6 Defens Fidei fere â—er totum acknowledgeth and the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee as M.r. Fitzherbert b In the end of his Preface in expresse words confesseth Now you may see if you please to reade that I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise that it is probable that the authoritie which the Pope claimeth to depose Princes is not true but vsurped not granted him by Christ but giuen him by men contrarie to those expresse words of CHRIST c Math. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God And therefore consider I pray you in what danger you stand of doing great iniury to your Soueraigne and committing flat treason against his Royall person and Crowne if you rashly and without due examination follow the Popes opinion iudgement or also declaratiue command grounded thereon who vnder pretence of demanding of you a profession of his spirituall authoritie and your spirituall obedience exacteth in very deede not spirituall allegiance but that obedience which is probably thought by many learned Catholikes to be a meere temporal allegiance and due onely to your temporall Prince 6 But obserue deare Countrimen a more manifest and dangerous gulfe into which for want of due consideration you may easily cast your selues For if once you grant that it is probable that it is a controuersie that it is a disputable question as in very deed it is and as I thinke very few of you who haue studied this question are perswaded to the contrarie that the right title power and authoritie which the Pope challengeth to depose Princes is no true title but pretended a meere temporall and not a true spirituall authoritie although I should grant you also for Disputation sake of which as yet I doe not dispute that it is also probable that the said title is good and that the Pope hath such an authoritie to depose Princes giuen him by Christ yet there is none of you so simple but if you will duely consider will presently perceiue that this title so long as it is in controuersie is titulus sinere a meere title which so long as it is disputable and debated on either side can neuer be put in practise by any man what opinion so euer he
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
aforesaid but also in practise are bound to adhere to his Maiestie and to resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that supposing it to be speculatiuely vncertaine whether the Pope hath any such power to depose a King or no it is an vndoubted rule k De regulis Iuris in 6◠among the Lawyers and grounded vpon the light of nature and principles of Diuinitie that in causa dubia siue incerta melior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the state of him that hath possession is the better And againe Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est Reo potiùs quà m Actori when it is vnknowne whether of the parties who are in suite hath right the defendant is to be preferred or fauoured before the plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this controuersie concerning the authoritie of Popes and Soueraigntie of Kings that is from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kings call it temporall or spirituall as you please for sure it is that the effect is temporall hath been vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kings and Subiects and therefore it can not bee said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authoritie although wee should grant that power right or authoritie may be said to bee possessed it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow in speculation concerning the Popes power to depose Princes yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Kings and the right of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not hee can not with a good conscience endeauour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which hee lawfully possesseth 66 Wherevpon in the end of my Apologie I inferred this conclusion whereof also in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I made mention And therefore if either Pope Prince or any other of a forraine countrey should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the kingdome which he possesseth this controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided hee should contrarie to the rules of iustice doe that Prince most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect can not be excused from manifest treason what soeuer opinion in speculation he doth maintaine concerning the Popes temporal power who should in practise vnder pretence perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duely also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne endeauour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced against him by the Pope 67 But because D. Schulkenius hath endeauoured to confute that reason which I out of the aforesaid rule of the Law In causa dubia melior est conditio possidentis I brought to proue that no man in practise can with a safe conscience obey the Popes sentence of depriuation so long as this controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth vndecided I will briefely declare how insufficiently he obiecteth against that reason First therefore he affirmeth l Cap. 15. ad nu 468. pag. 629. pag. 633. ad nu 470. that this doctrine to depose Princes is not doubtfull or in controuersie among Catholikes but it is certaine and of faith and none but heretikes and schismatikes doe defend the contrarie and therefore that rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the possessour is the bettter can not bee applyed to the Popes power to depose Princes But how vntrue this is and also how slanderous and iniurious it is to many learned Catholikes especially to the most Christian Kingdom of France I will cleerely shew beneath in so much that for this cause onely if there had been no other his book was deseruedly burnt publikly at Paris 68 Secondly D. Schulkenius would seeme to affirme that the aforesaid rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the state of him who hath possessions is the better is not a rule of the Law for that saith he I finde not in the rules of the Law In a doubtfull or disputable cause but In a like or equall case the state or condition of him who hath possession is the better But it D. Schulkenius will cauill about the words and not regard the sense I may likewise say that hee findeth not in the rules of the Law In an equall or like case but in an equall and like cause the state of him who hath possession is the better But because cause and case like equall doubtfull vncertaine and disputable haue all one sense for that if two causes or cases be doubtfull vncertaine or disputable they are like or equall in that therefore I regarding the sense and not the words did rather vse the words doubtfull vncertaine and disputable then like or equall both for that the former words doe declare the sense of the rule more plainely and also because Diuines in alledging that rule of the Law do commonly vse the word doubtfull as it may be seene in Dominicus Sotus m Lib. 7. de instit q. 3. ar 2. Ioannes Azor n Tom. 1. lib 2. Instit cap. 18. Ioannes Salas o Dis 1. sec 9. de Legibus and Gabriel Vasquez p Prima secundae disp 65. cap. and therefore Vasquez citing the aforesaid rule taketh like and doubtfull for all one The aforesaid rule saith hee q Disp 66. ca. 7 In dubijs seu in pari causa c. In doubts or in a like cause the state of the possessor is the better c. 69 Wherefore D. Sculckenius perceiuing that this exception of his against the aforesaid rule is only verball will not absolutely deny the rule but answereth thirdly that if there be such a rule of the Law as without doubt in sense there is both in the Canon r De Regulis Iuris in sexto and Ciuill Law and in expresse words the Diuines and Lawiers doe cite it so it doth make for the Pope s ff De regulis Iuris regula 170. In pari causa c. who hath beene for many hundred yeares in possession to iudge and depose Seclar Princes especially in a cause belonging to faith But this answere of D. Sculckenius is very insufficient For first although we should grant that right power or authoritie may bee said to be possessed in that sense as Possession is taken in Law whereas according to the Lawiers as Molina the Iesuite obserueth t De Iustitia tract 2. Disp 12. possession properly is onely of corporall things and right power and such like spirituall things are onely said to bee as it were possessed yet supposing that it is a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable question whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no as the
Pope is said to be in possession of his right to depose Princes so Princes may be said to bee in possession of their right not to be deposed by the Pope and therefore in this cause is like or equall doubtfull or disputable as well for Princes right not to be deposed as for the Popes right to depose them and on the other side Princes are not onely in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope but also in quiet peaceable and lawfull possession of their Kingdomes and temporall Dominions which onely are properly said to be possessed in respect whereof this rule fauoureth onely Princes and not the Pope and therefore in this doubtfull and disputable case of the Popes power to depose Princes the state and condition of Princes who are in lawfull possession not onely of their right not to be deposed by the Pope but also of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they possesse is according to the aforesaid rule to be preferred 70. Moreouer that the Popes right power or authoritie to depose Princes may be said to be possessed if possession properly be of rights it is necessarie that hee exercise that power to depose Kings they knowing thereof and bearing it patiently and without contradiction as may clearely be gathered out of u Tract 2. de Instit disp 14. Molina and x Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub 11. Lessius And the reason is euident for otherwise if any man should challenge a right bee it good or bad and should exercise that pretended right the contrarie part contradicting he may neuerthelesse be said to be in lawfull possession of that right And so if temporall Lords should pretend to haue a spirituall Iurisdiction ouer temporall and spirituall persons and should exercise that pretended spirituall Iurisdiction ouer them they contradicting and excepting against the same they might neuerthelesse be said to be in possession of that spirituall Iurisdiction But Christian Kings from the time of Henry the fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that euer was deposed by the Pope vntill the time of Henry the fourth most Christian King of France who was the last King whom the Pope deposed haue euer resisted and contradicted this authoritie of the Pope to depose them And therefore although Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth challenged this authoritie to depose Kings yet they cannot be said to haue been for one yeare or one day in possession of that authoritie ouer Kings seeing that Kings haue euer gainsaid and contradicted it And although there should perchance haue beene some one or other Christian King who for some priuate or publicke respect hath not resisted the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced against him but rather yeelded thereunto yet this cannot be a sufficient warrant to preiudice his Successours or that the Pope may bee said to be in possession of his pretended authoritie to depose Kings in generall but at the most to depose that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the authoritie which the Pope claimed to depose him 71. Fourthly and lastly D. Schulckenius answereth that the aforesaid rule is to be vnderstood when the controuersie is betwixt two inferiour parties who are in suite and not betwixt the Iudge and the partie accused or if wee will apply it to the Iudge and the partie accused the Iudge is to be preferred before the partie accused but the Pope is Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes and therefore this rule saith he is in fauour of the Pope But how vnsound and insufficient is also this Reply of D. Schulckenius it is very apparant For First although the Pope be Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes in spirituall causes and punishments yet in temporall causes and punishments they haue no Iudge or Superiour besides God the supreme Iudge of all both Kings and Popes and therefore well said our learned Countreiman Alexander of Hales y 3 part q. 40. mem 5. q. 4. expound those words A King is to be punished by God alone with materiall punishment And againe A King hath no man who may iudge his facts to wit to inflict corporall punishment And againe A king doth excell as it is written 1. Pet. 2. it is true in his degree to wit to exercise corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but God alone 72. Yea rather contrariwise the Roman Emperors were in times past Iudges in temporall causes of all the Romane Empire and of euery member thereof both Cleargie and Laitie but the deposition of Kings is a temporall cause and punishment for what crime soeuer whether temporall or spirituall a King be deposed and therefore the controuersie about deposing Kings betwixt the Pope challenging to himselfe that authoritie and Kings who are supreme Iudges in temporalls denying it is not betwixt the Iudge and the party accused but at the least betwixt two equalls in temporall causes whereof the Pope who first challenged this power to make Kings no Kings is the plaintiffe and Kings who defend their ancient right and prerogatiue not to be deposed by the Pope are the defendant and so also that second rule of the Law Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. When 〈◊〉 is not cleare whether of the parties who are in suite haue right the defendant is to be preferred before the plaintiffe fauoureth Kings and not the Pope who only from the time of Gregorie the seuenth claimed this authoritie to make Kings no Kings 73. Secondly I doe not thinke that any Lawyer will affirme that if a Iudge who is onely knowne to haue authoritie in ciuill matters as ciuill is opposed to criminall should challenge a Iurisdiction in criminall causes and condemne a man to death before he shewed that hee had sufficient warrant from the Prince so to doe the partie condemned is bound to obey that Iudge or that the aforesaid rule In a like or doubtfull cause hee that hath possession it to be preferred should fauour the aforesaid Iudge and not the party condemned who is not onely in possession of his life but also hath right to defend his life vntill the Iudge shew sufficient warrant or it is otherwise publikely knowne that he hath authoritie to take it away Neither is it a sufficient warrant for the Iudge that it is knowne that he is a Iudge in ciuill matters vnlesse it be also knowne that he is a Iudge also in criminall causes as likewise it is not a sufficient warrant for the Pope to depriue Kings of their temporall kingdomes that it is cleare that he is a Iudge in all spirituall matters vnlesse also it be cleare as yet it is not that he is also a Iudge in temporall causes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coercion as without doubt are the taking away of temporall kingdomes for what crime soeuer they be taken away 74.
Wherefore that Dialogue which D. Schulckenius maketh betwixt the Pope and a conuicted heretike whose goods are without any controuersie confiscated both by the Ciuill and Canon Law is vnaptly applyed to the deposing of Kings which hath beene and is at this present in controuersie among Catholikes Besides that this Dialogue also supposeth that the Pope is in possession of his authoritie to depose Kings and that Kings are not in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope and that the Pope is a Iudge of temporall Kings in temporall causes and to punish them with temporall punishments by way of coercion and also that the aforesayd rule fauoureth the Iudge and not the person conuented before the Iudge when the authority of the Iudge ouer the person conuented is not sufficiently knowen all which as I haue shewed before are very vntrue And by this thou maiest perceiue good Reader how insufficient are the exceptions which D. Schuclkenius bringeth against my argument grounded in the aforsaid rule of the Law as in very deed are al the rest of his Replies against my Apology as God willing ere long for I cannot answer fully and exactly as I intend all my Aduersaries at once I will most cleerely shew 75. Consider now do are Country-men first the vnsincere dealing of this my Aduersarie T. F. who concealeth the chiefest part of opinion and doctrine for the securing of his Maiesty of the constant loyaltie and allegeance wherein all his Catholike Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby he may cause his Maiestie to bee iealous of my fidelity and to account me no good Subiect as this man slanderously affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or child of the Church as I professe my selfe to be but that I am falne into flat heresie from which I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe for impugning that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is grounded vpon such assured and solid foundation as this man forsooth heere hath signified but how guilfully and vnsoundly you haue partly seene and he will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter where also his particular frauds and falsehoods I will more particularly and manifestly lay open to his owne shame and confusion But for all his slanderous words I trust in God that it wil appear to all men that insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui z Psal 26. mentita est iniquit as sibi that false witnesses haue risen vp against me and that wickednesse hath be lied her selfe and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a good Catholike and a dutifull childe of the Catholike Church as partly I haue prooued heere already and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter In the meane time let Mr. Fitzherbert examine well his Catholike faith and consider what a kinde of Catholike hee is who so stiffely maintaineth vncertaine opinions for the Catholike faith which if it bee truely Catholike cannot be exposed to any falshood or vncertainty as this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which with Catholike faith hee pretendeth truely to beleeue may in very deede bee false and without all doubt is vncertaine and questionable among Catholikes 76. Secondly consider how vntruely Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that my manner of disputing this question probably concerning the Popes power not to depose Princes and the lawfull taking of the Oath doth not onely giue no security to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safety and how vnlearnedly hee argueth from speculation to practise For although I should admit not onely for Disputation sake as onely I doe but also positiuely confesse that in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes whereas with that affirmatiue part of the question to wit whether it bee probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes I do not intermeddle but I do only handle the negatiue part and doe affirme that it is probable he hath no such power which manner of disputing against such Aduersaries who hold it not onely probable but certaine that he hath such a power can in no sort be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as I cleerely shewed before neuerthelesse this my Aduersarie very vnsoundly from hence inferreth that because in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore in practise it is lawfull to concurre to the actuall deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their Kingdomes or for Subiects notwithstanding any sentence of deposition to beare armes against them so long as this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth disputable and vndecided Wherfore my firme resolute and constant opinion is that the Pope hath not power to dispēce or absolue any of his Maiesties Subiects what opinion soeuer in speculation they follow concerning the Popes power to depose Princes from anie promissorie parts of the Oath which onely doe belong to practise and as for the assertory parts of the Oath which belong to speculation they are not subiect to the Popes power of dispencing as I shewed at large in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. 77. Now whether this my doctrine doth not onely giue no securitie to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as this my Aduersarie to procure his Maiesties displeasure against me falsely and vnlearnedly affirmeth if the Pope should denounce any sentence of depriuation against him I leaue to the iudgement of any sensible man Neither is it vnusuall that an opinion or doctrine may in speculation bee probable which yet in practise it is not lawfull to follow as may bee seene in the ministring of corporall physicke and of those Sacraments which are necessarie to saluation For although it bee probable that such a medicine will cure such a dangerous disease for that learned Physicians are of that opinion although other learned Physicians thinke the contrarie to be true or that such a matter or forme be sufficient to the validitie of the Sacrament for example sake of Baptisme because learned Diuines hold it to bee sufficient although other learned Diuines bee of the contrarie opinion and so in speculation both opinions be probable yet in practise wee are bound by the law of charitie to apply to our neighbour those remedies either spirituall or corporall which are out of question and controuersie and to leaue those that are questionable if certaine and vndoubted remedies can be had So likewise althogh it be probable that such a house or land doth not by a lawfull title belong to him who is in lawfull possession thereof for that learned Lawyers are of that opinion although other learned Lawyers thinke the contrarie to bee true and so in speculation both opinions bee probable yet in practise wee are bound by the rules of Iustice not to dispossesse
him by violence of that howse or land before the Iudge hath decided the controuersie 78 Thirdly consider the reason why this my Aduersarie T. F. is so greatly offended that I for this present doe onely take in hand by answering probably all the arguments which are obiected on the contrarie side to shew that it is probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes and consequently that any man may with a safe and probable conscience take the Oath for that the doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is by this my Aduersaries owne confession the maine question betwixt him me and the chiefe ground wherefore the Oath is iudged to be vnlawfull His reason therfore is for that he saw right well what great aduantage I had against him and what little aduantage hee had against me in arguing or rather answering in this manner and therefore he calleth it in heate of his zeale as you haue heard The most deuilish deuice that any man could invent And truly if I should at this first beginning haue treated of this controuersie in any other manner then by handling it probably in that sense as I haue declared I might worthily haue been taxed of great imprudencie in giuing my Aduersarie more aduantage against me then was needfull For this is the state of the question whether it can bee clearely convinced by the authoritie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Generall Councells or by necessarie inferences from any of them as my Aduersaries pretend to convince that it is an vndoubted doctrine of faith and the contrarie not to be maintained by any Catholike that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and consequently that the Oath can not lawfully be taken This is the question 79 Marke now the aduantage I haue For first I am not to proue but only to answer to defend not to oppose Secondly it is sufficient for me that my Answers be onely probable but their Replyes must not be onely probable but also convincing and which can not with any probabilitie be answered So that if I should goe about at the first to proue my opinion to be most true which my Aduersaries contend not to be questionable I should as it is euident greatly disaduantage my selfe For in such controuersies as are so violently maintained by the Aduersarie that hee will not grant the contrarie part to be questionable it is necessarie to proceed by degrees first to make the thing questionable and disputable which the aduerse part will not haue to be called in question and after this is once agreed vpon then to examine whether opinion be the truest For perchance it may fall out that as the opinion for the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin before Scotus did oppose himselfe herein against S. Thomas and his followers was scarse accounted probable yet afterwards it was daily more and more embraced so that it is now esteemed to be by farre the more true opinion and as Alphonsus Salmeron b in Rom 5. Disp 51. § deinde and Franciscus c Tom. 2. Disp 3. sec 5. Suarez doe affirme agreed vpon by the consent almost of the vninuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities And as that opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not dispence in the solemne vow of Religious chastitie neither in any lawfull marriage before it bee consummate is accounted by very many learned men to be the truer opinion notwithstanding the practise of many Popes to the contrarie So it may fall out that in processe of time this opinion which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes may be accounted by the greatest number of learned men to be by farre the more true opinion and may be agreed vpon by the consent almost of the Vniuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities notwithstanding the practise of many Popes and the vehement opposition of the Iesuits at this present time to the contrarie 80 Fourthly consider how little beholding are English Catholikes to this my Aduersarie T. F. who will needs inforce them euen with the temporall ouerthrow of themselues and of their whole posteritie to defend that doctrine to be of faith which the State of France accounteth scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious and also endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie that no Catholike can according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be a true and loyall Subiect to his Maiestie but at the Popes pleasure or which is all one so long onely as the Pope shall not depose him which he may doe at his pleasure But we haue great affiance in his Maiesties singular wisdome and element disposition whereof we haue had both by his Maiesties gracious Proclamation publike bookes and effectuall deeds sufficient tryall that he will not be drawne by the false suggestion of this my Aduersarie who would haue all his Catholike Subiects to be of the same violent spirit as he is to haue all his Catholike Subiects in the same degree of iealousie but that he will euer make a distinction betwixt them who are his true hearted Subiects and most loyall in all temporall affaires and will aduenture all that they haue and are in defence of his Maiesties Royall Person and dignitie against any sentence of depriuation whatsoeuer which shall be denounced against him by the Pope assuring themselues that it is conformable to the grounds of Catholike Religion which they professe and not repugnant to that spirituall obedience wherein they stand bound to the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and those other Catholikes who thinking it to be a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to dethrone Soueraigne Princes and to make temporall Kings priuate men will only defend his Maiestie and yeeld him temporall obedience vntill the Pope after his sentence of depriuation shall command them the contrarie 81 But what small reliefe are English Catholikes to expect from Mr. Fitzherberts hands if it were in his power to relieue them you may Catholike Countrymen coniecture by this that towards the end of Queene Elizabeth hir raigne when those foure Reuerend Priests were at Rome to seeke redresse of Pope Clement the eight to whom they and other of their brethren had appealed for the manifold wrongs and slaunders wherewith they were charged both at home and abroad at which time this my Aduersarie running from Cardinall to Cardinall to informe against them made no scruple of conscience to disgrace and slaunder them as Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the See Apostolike c. as now in his publike writings he handleth me hee and some others vpon whom he depended fearing lest that hir Maiestie should shew some fauour and giue some sort of toleration to such hir Catholike Subiects whom for their constant loyaltie she might securely trust for out of hir Princely and mercifull disposition Shee had already shewed ouer great fauour to those oppressed Priests considering the present lawes
And therefore I will easily grant that the Pope may exact if need require not only of the Romane Emperour but also of all other Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance this is that I vtterly deny neither will Card. Bellarmine or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus a man excellently learned and a Classicall Doctour that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes and to dispose of their temporall dominions Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctour of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient 1. THe third authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 7. and also in my Apologie b Num. 121. was of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike and as Trithemius relateth c In verbo Ioannes Parisiensis most learned in the holy Scriptures and who in the Vniuersitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Professour and left behind him many Disciples He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran which is now adaies so greatly vrged by our Aduersaries This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion that if a King should become an heretike and incorrigible and a contemner of Ecclesiasticall Censures the Pope may do somewhat with the people whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dignitie and be deposed by the people to wit he may excommunicate all those to whom it belongeth to depose the king who should obey him as their Soueraigne Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion that it belongeth not to the Pope to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall or which is all one to depriue them d Almainus de potest Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8. of their kingdomes by a definitiue sentence in such sort that after the sentence be published they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie For he affirmeth e De potest Regia Papali cap. 14. ad 20. that excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge For although saith he it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not power to doe this but by vsing those meanes which be giuen him by God which is by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle yet concerning the principall controuersie which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether it be hereticall erroneous or temerarious to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely as I haue now shewed contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Disputation 2 Marke now good Reader with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis saith he f Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num 4. is not for the contrarie opinion For although he giueth lesse to the Pope then he ought yet he giueth as much as sufficeth for our purpose For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope doe depose immediately by his sentence or that he may by his right withdraw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is and euer hath been whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence in such sort that after his sentence of depriuation be denounced they who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie are then no more Kings and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis blusheth not to affirme that it doth not appertaine to the present question whether the Pope may depose immediately by his sentence which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle For most certaine it is euen according to Card Bellarmines owne doctrine g in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. that the Pope can not withdraw discharge or absolue subiects from their obedience immediatly by his sentence vnles he haue authoritie to depriue immediately by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie for that authoritie in a Prince and obedience in subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect as the dignitie power or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour saith Suarez h in Defensione fides c. lib. 6. cap 3. nu 6. and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince and is not depriued of his Princely power is clearely repugnant saith Card Bellarmine i in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. p. 202. to the law of God and nature 3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods or dominions either of Kings or priuate men And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee affirmeth k De potest Regia Pap. cap 6. 7. that the Pope is not a Lord to whom the propertie of Church liuings doth belong but onely a dispencer of them but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer but a declarer of the law And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners all the goods of the faithfull yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated the Pope who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie but of all the faithfull as they are faithfull hath authoritie as he is generall informer of faith and manners in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull to ordaine them to be exposed as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās or other such like accident And this ordination of the Pope is only a
declaration of the law to which he may by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell the faithfull But in cases not of necessitie but of some speciall vtilitie or when it is not apparant that the goods of Lay-men doe helpe such vtilitie or necessitie the Pope hath not authoritie to compell any man but concerning this hee may giue indulgences for giuing aide to the faithfull and no other thing is granted him in my opinion Thus writeth Parisiensis wherefore in his opinion the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Lay-man of his goods or any part thereof euen in necessitie of faith and manners but onely to declare that he is bound by the law of God to giue such part of his goods as the necessitie of the Church shall require which if he neglect to doe the Pope hath no other authoritie to compell him therevnto then by Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the last punishments which the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can inflict 4 In the very like manner Parisiensis discourseth of the disposing of Kingdomes and of deposing temporall Princes as I before related out of him For first he affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose a King iuridically or which is all one to depriue him by a iuridicall sentence of his right to reigne and secondly that the people or temporall common-wealth may and in some exorbitant cases are bound to depose their Prince and so the Pope not by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation but by declaring what the people are by the law of God bound to doe and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compelling them therevnto may according to Parisiensis concurre to the deposing of a Prince by meanes of the people which if the people notwithstanding the Popes Censures neglect to doe the Pope hath no further power to depose him for that Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to him the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict 5 Wherefore two things are affirmed by Parisiensis the one that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes immediately by his sentence of their Princely power and this is that only which is in controuersie betwixt mee and Card Bellarmine the other that the people or temporall common-wealth haue that authoritie in some exorbitant cases and this is only a philosophicall question and wherewith I would neuer intermeddle as being impertinent to the question concerning the Popes authoritie to depriue him And although many Catholike Doctors doe agree with Parisiensis in this point yet many other learned Catholikes whom I cited in my Apologie l Num. 411. doe dissent from him herein to which opinion doe incline very many of the ancient Fathers who expounding those words of the King and Prophet m Psal 50. I haue sinned to thee alone doe affirme that Soueraigne Princes for that they are inferiour to God alone to wit in temporalls can be punished with temporall punishments by God alone And therefore D. Schulckenius may be greatly ashamed to affirme so boldly that Parisiensis doth not make for my opinion and that it doth not appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope may depose Princes immediately by his sentence or by meanes of the people seeing that the onely question betwixt vs is whether the Pope hath power to depriue Princes of their Royall power immediately by his sentence and not what authoritie the common-wealth hath to depriue them 6 But D. Schulckenius perceiuing that this his answer to the authoritie of Parisiensis was but a meere shift and euasion hath reserued but not in this place another answer whereby he imagined to cleane ouerthrow the authority of this famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine For hee beneath n Pag. 394. ad num 201. replying to the answer which I made to those words of S. Bernard vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentas c. wherof beneath o Part. 2. ca. 9. I will treate more at large in confirmation of which my answer I cited the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis D. Schulckenius writeth thus There is no great regard to bee had of the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis whatsoeuer he saith for that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and also in the 14. chapter of the same Treatise hee mingleth many errours The like answer but more biting maketh Fa Lessius in his Singleton It is to little purpose saith he p Pag. 29. what Ioannes Parisiensis doth say because he alledgeth very many other false citations and histories as being a Schismatike Another censure but more temperate Card. Bellarmine giueth of him in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers Ioannnes Parisiensis saith he q Pag. 380. of the Order of the Preachers was famous about the yeere 1296. Hee wrote vpon the foure bookes of the sentences and diuerse Quodlibets but especially of Kingly and Papall power and because it was his happe to liue in trouble sometimes by reason of the discord betweene Pope Boniface the eight and Philip the faire King of France and hee liued and taught at Paris hee seemeth to be more inclined towards the King then the Pope 5 But truely it is strange that men of such singular learning and religious profession should so rashly and without sufficient grounds be so transported as contrarie to the rules of Christian Charitie and Iustice to defame and slaunder learned and vertuous men and those especially who beeing dead cannot defend themselues For first it is an apparant and too too manifest slander which Fa Lessius speaking with all dutifull respect to his reuerence doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis was a Schismatike neither can he out of any approoued Authour or by any probable reason prooue any such thing and therfore what great account hee hath to make at the dreadfull day of iudgement for vniustly taking away as much as lieth in him the good name of so famous a man and in so fowle and hainous a crime as Schisme is I remit to the examination of his owne conscience Besides that Parisiensis mingleth many errours in the 14. chapter of his Kingly and Papall power as D. Schulckenius affirmeth and that he alledgeth many false citations and histories as Fa Lessius saith is also vntrue and it had beene fitting for them to haue alledged some one of them that thereby some credit might haue beene giuen them for the rest Vnlesse whatsoeuer is not agreeable to D. Schulckenius his doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine must bee accounted an errour and whatsoeuer Fa. Lessius hath not seeene or read must be esteemed a false citation or historie True it is that Parisiensis in that 14. chapter doth teach that the Pope cannot iudge of temporall causes but in regard of the sinne and that hee cannot depose Princes by his sentence and that the last punishment which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict are spirituall and Ecclesiasticall
Censures which indeede are no errours whatsoeuer these seuere Censours say to the contrary True also it is that Parisiensis citeth a place out of Hostiensis at which Fa. Lessius doth indiscreetly carp r Pag. 30. affirming that he findeth no such thing in Hostiensis yea that Hostiensis hath not written vpon the chapter Ad Abolendam tit de Haereticis as Widdrington iudgeth as neither vpon other texis But neuerthelesse I found in Ostiensis vpon the chapter Ad abolendam that which Ioannes Parisiensis cited out of him and to say that Hostiensis did not write vpon that chapter Ad abolendam is so manifest an vntruth as I obserued in another place Å¿ In my Latin Appendix against Fa Suarez part 1. sec 7 num 14. that I wonder how F. Lessius who is reputed to be a man of so great reading could be ignorant thereof 6 Moreouer that Parisiensis seemeth to bee more enclined to the King then to the Pope he then liuing and teaching at Paris is indeede affirmed but not prooued by Card. Bellarmine And if this manner of censuring learned men and excepting against their authority as men partiall may be approoued it is the readie way to ouerthrow the testimony almost of all the Authours on both sides For it may in the same manner be answered that as such Authours wrote partially in fauour of Kings so others wrote partially in fauour of Popes And therefore Parisiensis himselfe foreseeing this obiection replieth thus For to say saith he t De potest Regia Papali c. 21. ad 41. that so woorthie men among whom some also were Popes did write against their conscience in fauour of Princes or for feare of them is to stretch foorth his mouth against heauen For contrariwise it might be sayd more probably that those Doctours who doe so vnmeasurably aduance the Popes authority doe speake for feare or fauour of him seeing that they are Ecclesiasticall persons who may by him get greater preferment And especially sith that they say although not well that the Pope doth graciously embrace them who do amplifie his authority depresseth them who doe say the contrarie 7 Furthermore neither can D. Schulckenius in my opinion sufficientlie prooue that Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned by Pope Iohn the 22. in that Extrauagant Vas electionis was this Ioannes Parisiensis who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power but some other Doctour of Paris who was called by that name and liued about that time And my coniectures are these First for that the errours which Ioannes de Poliaco maintained concerning confessions made to the mendicant Friers were against the priuiledges which were granted to the mendicant Friers and therefore it is not like that he who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power and was himselfe of the order of the preaching Friers would preach and teach against the priuiledges granted to his Order Secondly if this Ioannes de Poliaco had been of the Order of the preaching Friers as all Authours affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power was it is very like that Pope Iohn the 22. who condemned his errors would haue named him so to be in his Extrauagant as he did in his other Extrauagants name of what Order those Authours were whose errours he condemned as Michael of Cesena William Occam Henricus of Cena and others who neuerthelesse are in some sort excused from errour by D. Sanders u De visib monarch lib. 7. num 161. 8. Thirdly there is no Authour that I haue read who saith that Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned was of the Order of the preaching Fryars neither doth Prateolus who vsually setteth down of what Order those Authours whom he relateth are affirme that this Ioannes de Poliaco was of that Order whereas most Authors who speake of Ioannes Parisiensis that wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power doe affirme that hee was a Dominican Fryar Fourthly neither is there any Authour that I haue read who doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power was called Ioannes de Poliaco Lastly Ioannes Parisiensis was famous in the yeare 1280. according to Trithemius and Kisengremus and according to Card. Bellarmine in the yeare 1296. both which may very well be true for that it may very well fall out that the same man may be a famous Teacher and Preacher for sixteene yeares together but it is very vnlike that one man should for one and fortie yeares together at the least be a famous Reader and Preacher which wee must grant to be true if Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned and he in person recalled them before the Pope and Cardinalls in publike Consistorie at Auinion in the yeare 1321. and was commanded to teach and preach in the Schooles and pulpit the contrarie doctrine was our Ioannes Parisiensis who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and papall power and was famous in the yeare 1280. 9. But to conclude this point be it so that our Ioannes Parisiensis and Ioannes de Poliaco were one and the selfe same man which yet as I haue shewed hath no great likelihood neuerthelesse the maintaining of those errors doth little repaire the authoritie of IoaÌ„nes Parisiensis in this point but rather from hence a forcible argument may bee drawne to proue that it is no erroneous doctrine to hould that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes by his sentence For besides that it was no great blemish either to the learning or vertue of Ioannes de Poliaco to hold that doctrine concerning confessions which was condemned in that Extrauagant seeing that both many other learned men at that time as Henricus de Gaâ—dano x quodl 2. q. 26. quodl 10. q. 1. a famous Doctour of Paris Durandus a S. Pâ—rtiano y In 4. dist 17. q. 1. a great Schoole-Diuine yea and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris as witnesseth Ioannes Maior z In 4. dist 17. q. 6. a famous Doctour of the same Vniuersitie did maintaine the same and also that he was readie at the first condemnation thereof to recall it and to preach the contrary if at that time the Pope and Cardinalls had also beene perswaded that it was an erroneous doctrine to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes by his sentence and that it belongeth to the Pope to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne by no other coerciue meanes then by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull and that Excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may bee inflicted by the spirituall Iudge all which Ioannes Parisiensis in his treatise of Kingly and papall power did publikely maintaine without doubt the Pope if hee had thought this doctrine to be erroneous would also haue compelled him to recall it it being so greatly preiudiciall to his owne Pontificall
Hir and Hir Dominions they thought themselues not onely bound in câ—â—â—cience not to obey this or any such like Censure but also did promise to yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls 2 Now it is euident that this their protestation which I did at large set downe in my Appendix to Suarez b Part. 2. sec 1. can no way be iustified but vpon supposall that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Queene For if hee had authoritie to depose Hir Shee being then by the Popes sentence depriued of all hir Regall authoritie power and Soueraigntie could not haue as they professed as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer theÌ„ and all the Subiects of the Realme as any of hir Predecessours euer had before Neither also could they although Shee had not been then deposed lawfully promise as out of Suarez I will convince beneath c Num 7. 8. that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions they would neuerthelesse yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls thinking themselues bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like Censure vnlesse they did suppose that the Pope had no power to depose hir Maiestie or to absolue hir Subiects from their obedience 3 And if perchance any of those Priests should now be of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to excuse his former protestation should answer that hee onely intended to acknowledge hir Maiestie to be at that time Queene and to reigne de facto but not de iure besides that he should shew himselfe to be an egregious dissembler equiuocatour and deluder both of hir Maiestie and also of his Holinesse and should therefore deserue to be greatly punished both for deluding the State in a matter of so great weight and also for bringing Catholike Religion in obloquie among Protestants by such detestable dissimulation not to call it flat lying and cosoning which ought to be abhorred of all men â—â—â—t especially Catholike Priests who both by their words and deeds ought to be a patterne to others of Christian sinceritie this Answer can not stand with the words which he protested 4 For first marke the Preamble to their Protestation which clearely confuteth the aforesaid answere Whereas say they it hath pleased our dread Soueraigne Lady to take some notice of the faith and loyaltie of vs her naturall borne Subiects Secular Priests as it appeareth in the late Proclamation and of her Prince-like clemencie hath giuen a sufficient earnest of some mercifull fauour toward vs being all subiect by the lawes of the Realme to death by our returne into the Country after our taking the Order of Priesthood since the first yeere of hir Maiesties reigne and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegiance thereby to be assured of our fidelitie to hir Maiesties Person Crowne Estate and dignitie Wee whose names are vnderwritten in most humble wise prostrate at hir Maiesties feete doe acknowledge our selues infinitely bound vnto hir Maiestie therefore and are most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes First therefore we acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessors euer had and further we protest c. 5 Now were it not an intollerable deluding and mockerie for any of those Priests this Preamble considered to affirme that by the aforesaid words hee did onely intend to acknowledge her Maiesty to bee Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure was this the notice that her Maiesty tooke of the faith of Secular Priests rather then of Iesuites and did her Maiesty by those words and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegeance thereby to bee assured of our fidelitie to her Maiesties person Crowne Estate and Dignitie demand of them that thay should acknowledge her to be Queene onely de facto but not de iure And can Catholike Priests of other Countries giue to their Soueraignes no other assurance of their loyalty then onely to acknowledge them to bee their Kings and to raigne ouer them de facto but not de iure as these Priests did acknowledge themselues to bee most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point vnto her Maiesty as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes No man could make doubt but that shee was Queene and did raigne de facto and so much the whole Christian world and her sworne enemies could not but acknowledge So that according to this shamelesse answer those Priests did giue no other assurance of their loyaltie to Queene Elizabeth then any man might giue to a knowen and manifest vsurper and by those words to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraignty as any her Predecessours euer had did acknowledge her to haue no other power and authoritie then any knowen vsurper hath and which her knowen enemies and who accounted her no lawfull Queene would also acknowledge her to haue that is to be Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure 6. Secondly although one may truely acknowledge an vsurper to be King and to raigne de facto for that this doth onely imply an act fact or possession which may bee without any right at all yet no man can truely acknowledge that an vsurper or who is King de facto onely and not de iure hath authority which doth import a rightfull and lawfull power to raigne and much lesse to haue as full authoritie and power as euer any his Predecessours euer had who were Kings and raigned not onely de facto but also de iure or which is all one did both actually raigne and also had full power and authority to raigne 5 Thirdly not onely the aforesayd acknowledgement that her Maiestie being at that time depriued by the Pope had neuerthelesse as full power and authoritie as any her Predecessours euer had before doth necessarily suppose that the Pope had no authoritie to depriue her but also although shee had not beene at that time depriued by the Pope the other clause of their protestation which contained a promise to obey her in all temporal causes and to defend her c. accounting it their dutie so to doe notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie or euerie one borne within her Maiesties Dominions that would not forsake the aforesayd defence of her Maiestie c. thinking themselues not bound in conscience to obey this or any such like Censure doth necessarily suppose and imply the same to wit that the Pope had no authoritie to depose her which Fa. Suarez arguing against the like clause contained in the new Oath of Allegeance doth most cleerely conuince whose
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
that the Pope hath no such authoritie Must the opinion of Card Bellarmine or of Suarez or of any other learned Catholike be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith All Catholikes doe confesse that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Christian King and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature and by the institution of Christ doth forbid but to absolue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication which being a spirituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect or by the sentence of depriuation this many learned Catholikes with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde or loose 16 True also it is that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church but these keyes are spirituall not temporall of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of temporall but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings as I haue often shewed neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegiance or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues libertie kingdomes or goods as by some Catholikes of these latter ages contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church they haue been violently wrested To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. I answer saith Ioannes Parisiensis according to S. Chrysostome Rabanus that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall to wit to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance 16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against those authorities which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation Now let any indifferent Reader iudge whether he hath sufficiently answered those authorities or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off and whether Mr. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly that D. Schulckenius to whom he cunningly also as you haue seene remitteth his English Reader for his answer to those authorities hath answered particularly to euerie one of them and prooued cleerely that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington 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 appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowen Schismatikes who liuing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauours of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so that of all the Authours that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same which how true it is or rather most cleerely false I remit to the consideration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader 17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius a learned and vertuous Catholike who expressely affirmeth that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no partly hee reiecteth partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers Grammarians Poets as Sigebert Valla Dante 's who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines and partly to repell his testimonie he falsely grossely and vnaduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to Posseuine who as you haue seene both in that and also other points of historie hath shamefully erred himselfe and neuerthelesse that which Trithemius affirmeth Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine and classicall Doctour of Paris who liued also in those daies confirmeth to be true whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all Albericus a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law for that hee deliuereth his opinion with submission is ready to recal it if it should prooue erroneous as euery good Catholike ought to doe he will haue to speake wauering and altogether doubtfull Ioannes Parisiensis a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point which I contend to prooue and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him without sufficient ground of many errours which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes The testimony of Mr. D. Barclay a famous learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike To M. Blackwell and those other English Priests he answereth nothing The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such particular circumstances that no man can misdoubt of them for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredible The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posseuines confession affirming that France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reieiecteth which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed And if this manner of answering authorities is to bee admitted who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer especially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie and to depresse their aduersaries and who shall seeme to make against them whether they be liuing or dead euen to the pit of hell appeaching them of heresie errour schisme and such like hainous crimes 18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apologie which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute whereof some of them doe expressely affirme that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall and not a temporall sword Others that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God and to bee punished with temporall punishments by God alone and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall Others that neither Childerike was deposed nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graecians
Rom. 12. wee being many are one body in Christ is examined 1. ANd to begin first with the vnion Card. Bellarmine bringeth two arguments to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power doe make one bodie or common-wealth among Christians The first is taken from the authoritie of S. Paul Rom 12. and 1 Cor 12. where hee affirmeth that wee being many are one body in Christ from whence Card Bellarmine concludeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont cap. 7. that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit the Church 2 To this argument I answered in my b Num 83. 89. 165. Apologie that the meaning of S. Paul in those places is that all Christians both Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they are by Baptisme regenerate in Christ doe truly properly and formally make one bodie one house one cittie one communitie or common-wealth to wit the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ which Card. Bellarmine defineth c Lib. 3. de Ecclesia cap 2. to be a companie of men vnited together by the profession of the same Christian faith and Communion of the same Sacraments vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastours and especially of one Romane Bishop Christ his Vicar in earth But S. Paul doth not say that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one onely bodie communitie or common-wealth and not also two or that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes not considered as Christians or regenerate in Christ by baptisme but as by their naturall birth or ciuil conuersation they are subiect to temporal Princes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe not also truely properly and formally make also another politike bodie another citie another communitie or common-wealth to wit the earthly Kingdomes of the Christian world 3. Wherefore it is not true that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes considered diuerse waies do not make diuerse kingdoms or common-wealths but one onely as Card. Bellarmine concludeth out of S. Paul for as by Baptisme they are regenerate in Christ and subiect in spirituals to Christ his vicegerent in earth they make one body or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ and this onely doth signifie S. Paul by those words we being many are one body in Christ but S. Paul doth not denie that all Christians as by their naturall birth or ciuill conuersation they are subiect to Secular Princes in temporall causes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe also truely properly and formally make another body or common-wealth which are the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world Cleargie men saith Card. Bellarmine himselfe d Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill common-wealth and againe e Ibid. cap. 30. if one saith he consider the companie of Lay-men not as they are Christians but as they are Citizens or after any other manner that companie cannot bee called the Church and consequently they must bee another common-wealth and therefore the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power or Clerkes or Laikes in whom the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe reside being considered diuerse waies doe not truely properly and formally make one only body but two distinct seuerall bodies or common-wealths although materially and accidentally vnited in that maner as I declared before f Cap. 1. nu 3. and presently will declare more at large 4. And whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that although the temporall and spirituall power doe make two partiall common-wealths yet they doe also make one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and to affirme the contrary is saith he against the Catholike faith hee doth heerein both speake contrarie to his owne principles and to that which hee knoweth to bee the Catholike faith and hee must also of necessitie fall into the Canonists opinion which he before g Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. a cap. 2. pretended to confute concerning the Popes spirituall and temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world For if the Church of Christ be one totall body or common-wealth compounded of Ecclesiastical and ciuill power as a man is compounded of soule and body for this is that similitude which so much pleaseth Card. Bellarmine and is therefore so often inculcated by him it must necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope in whom according to his other grounds all the power of the Church doth reside must haue truly properly and formally both temporall and Ecclesiasticall power as a man who is compounded of soule and bodie hath truely properly and formally in him both the soule and bodie and all the powers and faculties of them both And what else is this I pray you then to maintaine with the Canonists that the Pope as Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch and that hee hath truely properly and formally both ciuill and spirituall authority And yet Card. Bellarmine in other places doth expressely affirme that the Pope as Pope hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 5 The Diuines saith he h In his book against D. Barclay ca. 12. pag. 137. doe giue to the Pope temporall and spirituall power onely in the Dominions of the Church which power in the patrimonie of S. Peter Pope Innocent in cap. per venerabilem doth call a full power ouer other Christian Prouinces they doe giue to the Pope onely a spirituall power which of it selfe and properly doth regard spirituall things but temporall things it doth regard as they are subordained to spirituall And therefore when we speake properly we say that the Pope hath power in temporals but not that he hath temporall power as he is Pope Now how these two can stand together that the spirituall and temporall power among Christians doe make one entire and totall body whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head as the body and soule doe make one man and yet that the Pope as Pope shall haue no temporall power which in it selfe is temporall but onely spirituall athough in some cases extended to temporall things seeing that these two powers doe truely compose the Church of Christ and consequently both of them are truly and really in the Church which they compound and so likewise in the Pope in whom all the power of the Church doth reside I remit to the iudgement of any sensible man 5. Besides what a more flat contradiction can there be then this to say that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe compound indeede two partiall but one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ or Christian common-wealth as hee heere affirmeth i In his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. and withall that the Church of Christ or the Christian common-wealth is compounded onely of spirituall authoritie as a little beneath hee affirmeth in these words d In his Schulckenius cap
5. p. 203. That which my Aduersarie Widdrington saith that the mysticall bodie Church or Christian common-wealth is compounded of spirituall authority alone is true in this sense that to compound the Christian common-wealth there is not necessary a power which is formally ciuill but yet there is necessarie a power which is so formally spirituall that it is also vertually ciuill c. For how can the Church of Christ be compounded of ciuill and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers and yet the Church not haue power which is formally ciuill but onely spirituall Neuerthelesse I doe not intend to denie that the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power among Christians may in this sense be called vertually ciuill or temporall because it may for the spirituall good command and compell spiritually temporall Princes to vse their temporall power for this were onely to contend about words but that the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is truely properly and formally compounded of ciuil and spiritualll power this I say is both vntrue and also flat contrarie to Card. Bellarmines own grounds but whether the spiritual power of the church may be called vertually ciuill or temporal for that it may also constraine and punish temporall Princes temporally or vse temporall and ciuill authoritie in case the temporall Prince for the spirituall good will not vse it this is the maine question betwixt mee and Card. Bellarmine 7. To conclude therefore this answere I doe freely grant that Kings and Bishops Clearks and Laicks as by baptisme they are regenerate in Christ doe truely properly and formally make one entire and totall body which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head but I vtterly deny that this spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is compounded of spirituall and temporall but onely of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or that Clearks and Laicks as they are citizens or by their naturall birth are subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes doe compound this Church of Christ but onely the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world which are onely compounded of ciuill and temporall authority In which Christian world or Christian common-wealth taking them for an aggregatum per accidens including both the spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof the Pope is head and also earthly kingdomes whereof Christian Princes are the onely visible heads for the Church of Christ is seldome times taken in this sense there is but one totall or intire Catholike Church yet there be many intire temporall kingdomes or common-wealths as of English French Spanish which haue their seuerall Princes Lawes and gouernments and haue no other communion then in friendship and amitie Yea the Catholike Church is one totall body or common-wealth in Christian and Infidell kingdomes And also in one particular Christian kingdome there be two distinct totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the temporall consisting of ciuill power and the Ecclesiasticall consisting of spirituall wherein as there bee two distinct communions the one spirituall in things belonging to grace and the other temporall in things belonging to nature So also their be two excommunications the one in spirituals wherein those that be excommunicated by the Church doe not participate and the other in temporalls whereof those who be excommunicated or made out-lawes by temporall Princes are not partakers in so much that they who are depriued of one of these communions are not thereby depriued of the other for an out-law may be a member of the Church and be partaker of spirituall communion and he who by Excommunication is depriued of Ecclesiasticall communion may bee a member of the ciuill common-wealth as Heathens and Publicans were and not therefore to be excluded from ciuill societie and conuersation 8. Wherefore although the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the visible heads thereof doe truely properly and formally make diuerse totall bodies or common-wealths which neuerthelesse ought both to conspire in league friendship to bring both Princes and subiects to life euerlasting yet they are not like to two confederate Cities or Kingdomes which are onely vnited in league and amity and haue no ciuill communion one with the other neither is the same man a citizen of both Cities or a subiect of both Kingdomes but the temporall and spirituall power are so vnited among Christians that the same man who by ciuill conuersation or naturall birth is a citizen part and member of the temporall City Kingdome or Common-wealth and consequently subiect to her Lawes is also by baptisme or spirituall regeneration made a citizen part or member of the spirituall Citie Kingdome or Cōmon-wealth which is the Church of Christ and consequently is also subiect to her Lawes So that although the vnion and communion of earthly Kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome of Christ bee greater among Christians then of two confederate Cities or temporall kingdomes yet this vnion and communion being onely material accidentall and in subiect as Musicke and Physicke are vnited in one man by reason whereof the same man is both a Musician and a Physician and consequently subiect to the precepts and directions of either art is not sufficient to cause them to make truely properly and formally one totall body kingdome or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head as neither the vnion of two accidents in one subiect is sufficient to cause them to make truely properly and formally one entire totall accidentall cōpound Neuerthelesse I do not deny as I obserued before but that the temporal spiritual power earthly kingdomes and the spiritual kingdome of Christ as they are referred to Christ who at leastwise as God is the head of them both doe make one totall body whereof Christ onely is the head which may be called the Christian world consisting of ciuill and spirituall power but in this manner neither the Pope nor temporall Princes are the head but onely parts and members of this totall body as beneath l Cap. 1. nu 4. I will declare more at large Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzen comparing the temporall and spirituall power to the body and soule in man is declared 1. THe second argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth is taken from the authority of S. Gregory Nazianzene who compareth the spirituall and temporall power among Christians to the soule and body of man From which similitude Card. Bellarmine argueth in this manner a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. These two powers in the Church saith hee are like to the spirit and body in a man For the body the spirit are as it were two common-wealths which may be found diuided and vnited The body is found without the spirit in beasts the spirit is found without the body in Angels the body and spirit are both vnited in man and doe make
cap. meruit de privilegijs wherein hee declareth that no preiudice shall arise to the King of France by that Extrauagant of Pope Boniface but that all things shall be vnderstood to be in the same state as they were before that definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King and Kingdome of France Thirdly for that all the authorities which hee bringeth from holy Scriptures to proue that the Pope hath both the temporall and spirituall sword doe proue only that the Pope is the spirituall Pastour of the Church and hath spirituall power to binde and loose to iudge and punish spiritually as whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth c. and a spirituall man doth iudge all things and he is iudged by none which place some Catholike writers expound of publike and authenticall iudgments For all the other places of holy Scripture which Pope Boniface alledgeth are either taken in the mysticall and not in the literall sense as those behold two swords here and put vp thy sword into the scabard but from the mysticall sense no forcible argument can bee drawne as all Diuines doe grant to proue any doctrine vnlesse to haue that mysticall sense it be declared in other places of holy Scripture or else they make nothing to the purpose as are those words which God spake to the Prophet Ieremie Behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer the Gentiles and ouer Kingdomes that thou maiest plucke vp and destroy and waste and dissipate and build and plant not to destroy nations and kingdomes and raise vp others but by his preaching to plant virtues and destroy vices as S. Hierome expoundeth and by foretelling the destruction of Kingdomes and Nations if they doe not repent and their increase and saluation if they will bee converted Neither is the Pope S. Ieremies Successour in the spirit of prophesie neither doe wee read that Ieremie destroyed any kingdom although he fulfilled all that which he was appointed to do by Alm God 41. It is the same saith Andreas Capella vpon this place to appoint him ouer the Gentiles and to giue him a Prophet in the Gentiles as he said before I giue thee power and authoritie saith God to declare and foretell in my name as my Prophet the ruines and wastings of the Gentiles and of Kingdomes That thou threaten my enemies whom in their Countries I haue planted placed confirmed erected that I will abolish them with captiuities vnlesse they will repent And contrariwise that I will build them and plant them againe that is restore to their ancient state them whom I shall destroy and abollish if they will acknowledge their sinnes And in these words all the charge of Ieremie is comprehended and the matter of this whole booke is declared For it is a prophecie of the destruction of the City and temple and of the captiuitie of the people and of their returne from captiuity and of the reedifying of the temple and City and of the ouerthrow of other nations and kingdomes Thus Capella And the same exposition of these words hath the Glosse vpon this place Besides Pope Boniface in this Extrauagant alledgeth for Scripture that which is no Scripture to wit for the truth testifying the spirituall power hath to institute or instruct the earthly power and to iudge it if it shall not be good which words are not to be found in the holy Scripture 42. Lastly there is no more account to be made of the authoritie of Pope Boniface the eight for this his doctrine in this point touching the Popes temporal authoritie ouer temporall Princes if we take him as a priuate Doctour deliuering his opinion then of an other Doctour as well learned as he was who holdeth with the Canonists that the Pope is direct Lord King of the world not only spirituall but also temporall for that Pope Boniface was of this opinion that the Pope hath direct power not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls Whereupon he wrote to Philip the faire King of France that he was subiect to him in spirituals and temporalls and that all those who should hold the contrary he reputed for heretikes and that the kingdome of France by reason of the Kings disobedience was falne to the Church For which words Pope Boniface is taxed by Ioannes Tilius x In Chron. ad annum 1302. Bishop of Meldune by Robertus Guaguinus y Lib. 7. in Philippo Pulch. by Platina z In vita Bonifaci◠octaui and others of great pride impudencie and arrogancie Whereupon Paulus Aemilius who doth otherwise greatly fauour Pope Boniface writeth thus * In Philippo Pulchro Pope Boniface did add at which all men did marmaile that the King of France ought to reuerence the Pope not only in sacred manner and by Episcopall right as a Father of our soules but he ought also to acknowledge him as his Prince by ciuill Iurisdiction and in prophane matters and dominion All this being considered as also that all the words of that Extrauagant are so generall that they may be vnderstood as well if not better of the Popes direct dominion in temporalls as of his indirect power to dispose of temporals which is only in order to spirituall good what great reckoning is to be made of this cōstitution of P. Boniface it being withal reuersed by P. Clemens the 5. who next but one succeeded him I remit to the cōsideration of the iudicious Reader Chap. 10. Wherein the similitude of Pope Innocent the third who compareth the spirituall and temporall power to the Sun Moone is examined 1. THe sixt and last argument which Card. Bellarmine bringth to proue the sbiection of the temporall power to the spirituall is taken from the authority of Pope Innocent the third who in cap. Solitae de maioritate obedientia doth wel saith he a In tract contra Barcl c. 13. in fine compare the spirituall temporall power to the Sun Moone Therefore as the moone is subiect to the Sun for that she receiueth light from the Sun the Sun is not subiect to the Moone for that the Sun receiueth nothing from the Moon so also a king is subiect to the Pope the Pope is not subiect to a king 2. But first this similitude doth not proue that the temporall power it selfe is subiect to the spirituall or which is all one that a temporall King is subiect to the Pope in respect of his temporall power which he doth not receiue from the Pope but in respect of the light of faith which a temporall King receiueth from the spirituall power And therefore as the Moone when she is eclypsed in opposition to the Sun doth not loose that little light which according to the doctrin of the Philosophers and astronomers she hath of her owne nature and not deriued from the Sunne so temporall Princes when of Catholikes or Christians they become heretikes or infidells and are in opposition to the Pope do not loose
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
meruaile that in conditionall disiunctiue propositions which follow the nature of copulatiues and not of pure or absolute disiunctiue propositions whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part is not by vertue of the coniunction affirmed of the other I say by vertue of the coniunction for that both in absolute and also in conditionall disiunctiues as likewise in copulatiue propositions it may fall out that by reason of the matter or of the thing affirmed or denyed the same falshood which is affirmed of the one part is affirmed also of the other but this is not to vse the Logicians phrase vi forma or vi coniunctionis by vertue of the forme or by force of the coniunction but vi materiae by reason or vertue of the matter as I declared before So that you see the more M. Fitzherbert meddleth with these Dialecticall questions which are cleane out of the spheare of his knowledge the more hee discouereth his vnskilfulnes 76 But yet hee will still goe on to bewray his ignorance and want of Logike For marke how vnlearnedly hee goeth about to proue that what I said of that clause of the Oath deposed or murthered to wit that it is a conditionall disiunctiue proposition and did signifie a free election to take either part of the disiunction may also bee said of other clauses of the Oath wherein neuerthelesse it is manifest that or is a pure disiunctiue and that whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction is also affirmed of the other As for example the Oath bindeth the takers thereof to sweare that the Pope hath no power or authority to depose the King which is as much in effect as that the Pope may not lawfully doe it Therefore let vs make the proposition so and lay it downe with the other disiunctiue clauses which follow immediately and to make the whole like to that clause that is now in question let vs conceiue it thus 77. I abiure h nu 18. this doctrine as false that the Pope may depose the King or dispose of any his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions Or authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy him Or discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance to his Maiestie Or giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to offer any violence to his Maiesties Royall person c. 78. Here now i Nu. 19. it cannot be denyed that or is disiunctiue in all these seuerall sentences in such sort that which of them soeuer any man doth teach hee teacheth according to the intent of this oath a false doctrine notwithstanding that the word may goeth before or and mplieth a free election to choose any one of them in so much that if a man should say onely that the Pope may authorize a forraine Prince to inuade his Maiestie he is condemned by the oath to speake no lesse vntruely then if hee should say that the Pope may depose his Maiestie or giue licence to any to offer violence to his person 79. Therefore k Nu 20. if Widdrington apply the words impious and hereticall in the other clause to the doctrine of murthering onely and not also to the doctrine of deposing Princes why may not he or any man else doe the like in the foresaid example and offirme that the last member and part thereof which denieth the Popes power to giue licence to offer violence to his Maiesties person is onely abiured as false whereby the former parts or clauses concerning the Popes power to depose his Maiestie or to dispose of his kingdomes or to giue licence to forraigne Princes to inuade or annoy him which are principall points of the oath would be superfluous and to no purpose So as it is manifest that the words of the oath deposed or murthered being considered according to their proper and vsuall signification in the clause where they are and compared also with the other clauses parts and circumstances of the oath cannot admit Widdringtons interpretation who applieth the note of heresie to the Murther and not also to the deposition of Princes Thus much concerning the words of the law or oath 80. Behold now how vnlearnedly Mr. Fitzherbert and yet his ignorance is the lesse excusable for that he might haue seene the weakenesse of his argument in my Theologicall Disputation where the Authour of the aforesaid English Dialogue obiecteth the like argument but in a contrary manner argueth from the truth of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which is negatiue de dicto to the falshood of a conditionall disiunctiue which is affirmatiue de modo and frameth an oath of his owne inuention far different in sense from the oath prescribed by his Maiestie which neuerthelesse hee pretendeth to haue the same sense and signification with his new deuised oath For the oath prescribed by his Maiesty is a negatiue proposition de dicto to wit that the Pope hath not any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of any his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or to discharge any of his Subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to offer any violence to his Maiesties Royall person c. And all this I must acknowledge to be true and therefore I called this whole proposition negatiue de dicto and affirmatiue de modo And the sense of this oath is cleere to wit that the Pope hath not any lawfull power to doe any one of these things so that if the Pope hath power to doe any one of them the whole and entire disiunctiue proposition consisting of those particular clauses is by vertue of the forme of words and of the coniunction disiunctiue or or rather nor not true but false I say by vertue of the forme of words for that the negation not going before and hauing a power to distribute to vse the Logicians phrase or to deny all that followeth it maketh all those disiunctiue coniunctions or which follow to be equiualent to nor or neither which as I say being a distributiue signe is to be resolued as euery Logician knoweth by the coniunction copulatiue and and not by the disiunctiue or for which cause some Grammarians doe also hould that the coniunction nor or neither is not a disiunctiue but a copulatiue coniunction 81. But the oath which Mr. Fitzherbert hath framed is a proposition negatiue de modo and affirmatiue de dicto to wit that the Pope may or which according to his owne exposition is all one that it is in the Popes free and lawfull power to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to
argument therfore I will set downe word by word only turning his speech to the Priests which he applieth to the Kings Maiestie 8 For to take away all manner of euasion saith Suarez d In Desens lib. 6. cap. 3. I demand whether those Priests doe vnderstand that the sentence of the Pope deposing a baptized Queene for crimes may be iust or they beleeue that it is alwaies vniust The first they will not in my opinion affirme for otherwise they should promise a most wicked thing to wit not to obey a iust sentence which implieth in it a iust command For if the sentence bee iust the command also which enioyneth subiects to obserue it must also be iust seeing that otherwise it cannot be put in execution Also if the sentence of deposition denounced against a Queene may bee iust it will also be effectuall therefore it hath the effect of that punishment which it imposeth Wherefore seeing that the punishment imposed by the sentence of deposition from her Kingdome is to depriue her actually or effectually of her dominion and propertie to her Kingdome a iust sentence doth effectually depriue her of her Kingdome therefore it is against iustice and obedience due vnto the Pope to resist that sentence and to defend the Queenes person against the execution of that sentence therefore hee that beleeueth the first and neuerthelesse promiseth this second doth promise a thing cleerly vniust and wicked 9 And besides it implieth a contradiction to be willing to yeeld obedience and allegeance as thinking thy selfe bound so to doe to one whom thou knowest to be by a iust declaration and sentence effectually deposed from her Kingdome As if the Pope himselfe should exact of Christians a promise that notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of deposing him for any crime euen for heresie denounced by whatsoeuer generall Councell they will defend him in his See and will yeelde him the same obedience and allegeance their promise were wicked for that it were a wicked thing and against the Church Faith Such therfore is the promise of those Priests if the aforesaid sentence against the Queene bee supposed to bee iust This therefore those Priests without doubt will not admit neither also are they as I thinke so inconsiderate of their affaires that if they grant the Popes sentence denounced against a Queene may be iust neuerthelesse they will deny that against the Queene of England it may haue the same iustice For what greater immunitie or innocencie can they alledge in the Queene of England then in other Princes who haue beene rebells to the Romane Church or forsakers and impugners of the faith Or although they do not acknowledge that the Queene for that time had not committed any thing worthy of deposition how doe they know that for the time to come she cannot and yet their promise is absolute notwithstanding any authoritie or any sentence of Excommunication denounced or to be denounced against the Queene or euery one borne within her Maiesties Dominions c. Wherefore there is no doubt but that the ground of this promise and profession is that such a sentence cannot bee iust Wherefore from hence we euidently conclude that those Priests by the aforesaid words do professe that the sentence of deposition against the Queene can neither be valid nor iust For in very deede this they doe professe when they promise not to obey nor to obserue such a sentence 10. Whereupon we do moreouer conclude that those Priests doe professe that the Pope hath not power to denounce such a sentence seeing that for no other cause they doe beleiue the sentence to be vniust but for that it is giuen without power and Iurisdiction in the Pope to depose a Queene Neither can those Priests alledge in such a sentence any other cause of iniustice which is perpetuall and may be a ground of this part of their profession for their profession doth not speake of a sentence alreadie denounced but absolutely of a sentence denounced or to be denounced against the Queene therfore it doth comprehend euery sentence whether it bee giuen the partie being heard or not heard whether for disagreement in religion or for any other crime or cause whatsoeuer Wherefore the iniustice which those Priests do suppose to bee in that sentence and wherupon they ground their profession is no other but for that they beleeue that it cannot proceede from a lawfull power and Iurisdiction And therefore I conclude that they professe that the Pope hath not power and Iurisdiction to giue a sentence of deposition against the Queene for any cause Thus argueth Father Suarez So that it is euident that those thirteene reuerend Priests must of necessitie suppose if they will haue their protestation and promise to be iust and lawfull that the Pope hath no power to depriued Princes of their Regall right and authoritie 11. And by this fift testimonie it is also apparant that not only M. Doctour Barclay and Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Sculckenius against me vntruely affirmeth but many other English Catholikes to omit those other learned Catholikes of other Countries of whom I haue spoken before and the Kingdome and State of France of which I will speake beneath g In the next Chapter are of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions Which also may moreouer be confirmed by the petition which some English Catholikes did exhibite to Queene Elizabeth deceased after the discouerie of Parries conspiracie wherein these expresse wordes are contained In consideration of all which necessarie points we doe protest before the true liuing God that all and euery Priest and Priests who haue at any time conuersed with vs haue recognized your Maiestie their vndoubted and lawfull Queene tam de iure quam de facto who neuerthelesse was at that time and long before depriued of her Princely power right and dignitie by the publike sentence of Pope Pius the fift 12. And to these authorities we may add the testimonies set downe in the end of Mr. Blackwells Latine examination of Bishop Watson Abbot Fernam Doctor Cole Iohn Harpesfield and Nicolas Harpesfield all of them very famous and learned Catholikes who vpon the publishing of the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth being examined by the Magistrate in the yeare 1578. and demanded whether notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence of the Pope denounced or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene they did thinke that shee was their true and lawfull Queene and that they and all other English and Irish men did as Subiects owe to her Maiesty obedience faith and loyaltie as to their lawfull and true Queene and Soueraigne Prince they did all with vniforme consent acknowledge and confesse that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence or declaration of the Pope already denounced or hereafter to be denounced