haue sufficiently shewed in my Theologicall Disputation and beneath I shall haue occasion to repeat againe And albeit his Holinesse had in his Breues particularly declared the doctrine for his power to depose Princes to be of faith and the contrary to be haereticall as likewise Pope Celestine the 3. did in a Breue or Decretall letter of his which was in times past for almost two hundred yeeres together extant in the Canon Law declare that Marriage was so dissolued by heresie that the partie whose consort was fallen into heresie might lawfully marry another which doctrine is now flatly condemned in the Councell of Trent yet this declaration of the Pope being no infallible definition but onely a signification of his opinion as I proued abundantly in the foresaid booke no Catholike is bound in conscience to follow it neither to obey his declaratiue precept grounded thereon as out of Suarez doctrine I shewed in that place x Disp Theolog câ—p 10. sâ—â— â— 16 Fourthly it is also vntrue that I confesse the contrary doctrine of theirs touching the absolute proposition to be at least probable and that it may be securely followed without doubt or danger for touching practise I doe vtterly condemne that doctrine as absolutely false impious daÌ„nable seditious yea in some sort hereticall as shall appeare beneath y In the Adioinder num 106. seq and for speculation I doe neither approue it as probable nor condemne it as improbable because with the probabilitie or improbabilitie of the affirmatiue part of this question I do not at this time intermeddle That only which I affirme is touching the negatiue part of the question to wit that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes but whether it be probable that he hath power to depose Princes I neither confes nor deny but only for Disputation sake I doe grant that although it be probable that the Pope hath such a power yet it doth not therefore follow that it is certaine and of faith and the contrarie hereticall improbable and not to be imbraced by any Catholike without note of heresie errour or temeritie And by this you may also easily perceiue another fraude and cunning of my Aduersarie For whereas he affirmeth that my speciall purpose is to shew probably that the said oath may lawfully be taken by Catholikes he doth heere turne cunningly the question an other way affirming that it is also probable yea the more probable opinion that the oath may lawfully be refused by Catholikes with which question I doe not intend at this present to intermeddle but only to proue by true probable arguments that the oath may lawfully be taken by Catholikes For be it so for Disputation sake that it is probable yea and the more probable opinion that Catholikes may lawfully refuse the oath by reason that so many learned men yea and the Pope himselfe doe thinke it to be vnlawfull which neuerthelesse I will not at this time either affirme or denie for the reason I will alledge beneath z Num 7 〈◊〉 yet can it not from thence be rightly concluded that therefore it is not probable that the oath may lawfully be taken or that it is a most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly as my Aduersarie seemeth to insinuate to follow an opinion which is truly probable against the more probable opinion of the Pope and other Diuines as out of the doctrine of Vasquez affirming it also to be the more opinion of Diuines I did in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 10 sâ—â— cleerely convince It is sufficient for my purpose at this present that Catholikes may lawfully take the oath but whether they may also refuse it I at this time will neither affirme nor denie This onely I will say that if Catholikes may lawfully take the oath and so auoide his Maiesties indignation against them and also their owne temporall ouerthrow and will not they may thanke themselues such like violent spirits as my Aduersarie is who by sleight and cunning endeauoureth to perplexe their consciences guilefully to perswade them that it is the more safe and the more probable way to suffer all temporall miseries and disgraces which he himselfe in my opinion if hee were in their case would not suffer then to do that which with a safe and probable conscience they may doe 18 Fiftly it is also vntrue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is conforme to the practise of the Church although it be indeed conforme to the practise of diuers Popes since the time of Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that trusting to the power and riches of other men contrary to the custome of his Ancestours contemning the Emperours authoritie depriued him of his Empire a thing before those times not heard of saith Onuphrius b De varia◠〈◊〉 Rom Pont lib. 4. which practise neuertheles was then and hath been euer since contradicted by Catholike Princes and subiects As also it is vntrue that this doctrine is confirmed by any one Generall Councell that it is a point of faith or the contrary doctrine hereticall or improbable as I haue partly shewed in the Preface of my Apologeticall Answer where I answered all those nine Councells which Card Bellarmine in his Answer to D. Barclay brought to proue his doctrine in this point to be of faith and the contrary not Catholike and partly I will shew beneath when I shall answer to the Replies which haue been made by Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name from whom my Aduersarie borroweth the third part of his booke to wit eight whole Chapters which he consumeth in defence of the Councell of Lateran to the answers I made to that Decree of the said Lateran Councell whereon this new doctrine of faith according to these men is chiefely grounded 19 Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersarie be able to convince as without doubt he is not that the opinion which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes is altogether improbable and the State of France besides many other Doctors as thou shalt see beneath to be extreame fooles he will neuer be able to demonstrate that it is most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly to adhere to that opinion which my Aduersarie to perswade his Reader that it is a singular opinion of one onely Authour and as he vntruly saith of no one Catholike euer calleth it my opinion considering that according to Vasquez doctrine which is as he saith c 1â— 2â— disp 62. cap 4. the common doctrine of the Schoole men it is neither follie nor temeritie to follow a probable opinion against the more probable the more common and the more sure opinion of the Pope and other learned men although they should pretend to convince their opinion by the authoritie of holy Scriptures declarations of Generall Councells the practise of the Church and other Theologicall reasons which seeme to them invincible For it is vsuall in
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
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
also by depriuing him of the sword as in the like case the Councell of Lateran often cited doth teach which one Councell is to be preferred before all the Barclaies or Iohns of Paris all men doe thinke who are not mad 28. Is not this thinke you a trim answere The question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine in this place was not concerning the Councell of Lateran wherof I will treat beneath * Part. 3. cap. 9. seq and plainely shew that notwithstanding all the clamours of my Aduersaries the said Councell hath neither defined or supposed for certaine nay or supposed at all that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes as D. Schulckenius doth here collect from thence but the question was onely concerning the authoritie of S. Bernard And I prooued clearely out of S. Bernards wordes that although the Pope as Pope hath power to command or forbid in some cases the vse of the materiall sworde yet that he hath power as he is Pope to vse it himselfe or to depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implyeth a power to vse it himselfe this I said could not be proued but rather the contrarie out of those words of S. Bernard who doth not only say that it is not fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword as D. Schulckenius would mince his words but that it is forbidden the Pope to draw foorth or vse the materiall sword Now D. Schulckenius passeth ouer S. Bernard and flyeth to the Councell of Lateran to proue that if the Emperour refuse at the Popes command to vse the materiall sword he may by the Popes authoritie bee depriued of the vse thereof whereas the present question was only concerning the opinion of S. Bernard and not what was the doctrine of the Councell of Lateran in this point whose authoritie I doe asmuch respect either as Card. Bellarmine or any other Catholike is bound to doe But it is an easie matter to wrest the words of the Councell of Lateran or any other to their purpose contrary to the true meaning of the Councell and then to crie out ô the Councell of Lateran which is to be preferred before all Barclaies and Widdringtons c. whereas we doe asmuch respect the authoritie of the Councell of Lateran or any other as they do although we doe not so much respect their ouer wrested collections which they to serue their owne turnes doe gather from any Councel or text of holy Scripture contrarie to the plaine proper and true sense and meaning of the words But to such shiftings and windings euen learned men are sometimes brought when they will make their vncertaine opinions and priuate expositions of holy Scriptures or Councells to be infallible grounds of the Catholike faith 29. Lastly but the foundation saith D. Schulckenius of Widdringtons errour is for that he thinketh that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour by reason of the faith and free promise which the Emperour gaue and made to the Pope according to the similitude which a little before he put concerning one who promised an other to spend his life and all his goods in defence of him But this foundation is false because the authoritie of the Pope ouer Christian Princes doth not proceed from their onely promise or faith which they haue giuen but from the law of God by which law the Pope is made by Christ the Pastour of all his stocke the chiefe of all his familie the head of all his body and the Rectour of all his Church Wherefore it is no maruaile if from false foundation he conclude a falshood to wit that S. Bernards words do not onely not fauour the Popes temporal power but are flat contrarie to it What I beseech you could be spoken more cleerely for the Popes temporall power then that which S. Bernard said that the temporall sword is the Popes and that both swords are the Churches and that the temporall sword ought to be drawne foorth at the Popes becke And as for Ioannes Parisiensis there is no great reckoning to be made of him whatsoeuer he saith both for that he is repugnant to the Councell of Lateran and many others and also that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and lastly for that either he denieth only the Popes direct power in temporalls or else he doth plainly contradict himselfe 30. But truely it is strange that learned men and who pretend to maintaine nothing but truth dare aduenture to auouch so bouldly and in such publike writings so manifest vntruths and which they themselues in their consciences can not but see to be plain and palpable vntruths I very often and that of set purpose did affirme in my Apologie and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and yet this man to make his Reader beleeue that I doe teach flat heresie blusheth not to affirme in an other place n Pag. 256. that I deny that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund temporall Princes in temporalls in order to spirituall good So likewise I did oftentimes in my Apologie affirme o Num. 90.91.181.223.341 and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power by the law of God and for that he is appointed by Christ to be the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Catholike Church to constraine and punish all disobedient Christians both Princes and people with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments and yet now this man to perswade his Reader that I teach heere a manifest errour is not ashamed to affirme that I am of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour in regard onely of the free promise which the Emperour hath made to the Pope And therefore D. Schulckenius neither dealeth truely nor sincerely and both deludeth his Reader and also wrongeth mee in affirming that to bee my doctrine which I expressely impugne and that to be the foundation of my opinion which hee is pleased to call an errour which I in expresse words and that oftentimes haue denied 21. For as I doe willingly grant that although a temporall Prince hath power to command and with temporall punishments to compell if neede require his temporall subiects to make and sweare an expresse promise of that true faith loyaltie and temporall allegeance which by the Law of God and nature they doe owe to their lawfull Prince yet I doe not affirme that a temporalll Prince hath power to constraine his rebellious subiects by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made but by vertue of his supreme temporall power which hee hath as hee is a supreme temporall Prince by the Law of God and nature So also I do willingly grant that although the Pope hath power to command and with spirituall punishments to compell if neede require all Christian Princes and
people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith loyalty and spirituall allegeance which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and the Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power which he hath by the Law of God and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus 32. True it is that the Reader might the better vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose of temporals and to dispose of them himselfe are very different things and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other I brought a familiar example of one who either by promise or by some other obligation and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise and cleane omitteth the other obligation is bound to dispose and giue his goods or life at anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding power which he hath ouer him and them take them away and dispose of them without his consent but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command according as by vertue either of his promise or of some other obligation he is bound to doe the other may complaine to the Magistrate that hee will punish him for his offence or cause him to performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword and to haue a power to vse it or to depriue of the vse thereof are two different things neither doth one necessarily follow from the other although the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope as Pope can vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implieth a power to vse the same but onely that the Pope being a spirituall Prince or Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor of the spirituall kingdome Church of Christ 33. Thus therefore you haue seen that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same then he hath done For although it be cleere that the temporall sword is according to S. Bernard the Popes in some sort and doth belong to the Church in some sort which words in some sort D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke direction or declaratiue command of the Pope yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes and belongeth to the Pope in some sort that it is to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier and not of the Priest at the becke indeede of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour and that our Sauiour commanded and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard do plainly shew that according to S. Bernard the Pope as Pope cannot vse the temporal sword nor constrain a temporall Prince by vsing temporall punishments which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword 34. And for D. Barclay and Iohn of Paris to omit our learned Country-man Alexander of Hales whose words I related before p Num. 18. who doe giue the very same answere which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine heere doth make very small reckoning yet I do plainly confesse that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword and to dispose of all temporals in order to spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely then he hath done Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane but onely to the particular exposition which som few especially of late yeeres who haue scraped together all the authorities of Fathers Councells Scriptures facts and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie haue wrested out the words of the said Councel contrarie to the plaine sense of the words and the common vnderstanding of all ancient Diuines who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines and those also who not perceiuing their owne errour doe accuse others of the same to alleadge in confirmation of their opinions the holy Scriptures and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning and then to cry out against their brethren who mislike their opinions that they haue the holy Sriptures and sacred Councels on their side and that therefore their doctrine is of faith and the contrary hereticall and that their Aduersaries doe oppose themselues against the holy Scriptures and decrees of the Catholike Church whereas wee doe regard with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures sacred Councels and decrees of the Catholik Church the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense not in the letter or in the expositiō of any priuate Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors which he maintained cōcerning confession and absolution of whose authoritie neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
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
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
innocencie by answering all his obiections and by clearing my selfe of all those imputations which hee hath falsly laid to my charge and if in defending my selfe I lay open his fraude and ignorance and returne his slanders backe vpon himselfe I ought not therefore to be taxed of calumniation seeing that to detect the slanders of the Aduersarie is not d Cap. 5. Apologiae to vse Card. Bellarmines owne words to be accounted a defaming Now to draw neere vnto the matter 4. Before my Aduersarie come to examine my Answere to his arguments he thinketh it not amisse to say somewhat concerning me the matter which I handle and the manner how I proceede therein First then touching me he affirmeth e In his Preface num 3. that whereas I call my selfe by the name of Widdrington it is well knowne to many that M. Roger Widdrington vnder whose shaddow I shroude my selfe is farre different from me in qualitie habit and profession And albeit f Num. 3. he is not ignorant what my true name and qualitie is yet he forbeareth to declare it for iust respects and will only say of me for the present that whereas our Aduersaries haue heretofore leuied and Prest many souldiers of their owne profession to maintaine their quarrells against vs they haue now in this late quarrell of the oath Prest one of ours I meane saith he this Authour who so much presumeth of his owne skill and strength that albeit the prouerbe saith Ne Hercules contra duos yet he feareth not to encounter tenne at once yea hopeth as it seemeth to wrest the club out of Hercules his hand and to beate him with his owne weapon For he taketh vpon him to ouerthrow Card. Bellarmine with his owne arguments to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions c. 5. But first whether Roger Widdrington be the true or supposed the sole or ioint Authour of that Disputation it little auaileth to the matter which is now in controuersie and when my Aduersarie shall name more plainely that person whom he forbearing as he saith to name yet cunningly nameth I doubt not but that hee will not be afraid to answere him more fully neither will all my Aduersaries clamours and threatnings discourage him from defending the truth his Prince and Countrey for the loue wherof not for any hope of temporall lucre or preferment or for to shew his wit as my Aduersary falsly affirmeth he will not be ashamed to be Prest on to write against Mr. Fitzherbert or any other such like Authour who liuing in other Countries and out of danger to loose any thing but rather in hope to obtaine preferment by their writings would presse English Catholikes to defend with danger of loosing all they haue and of incurring his Maiesties high displeasuer that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith which the State of France hath accounted scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious In the meane time let this suffice that he is a childe of the Catholike Romane Church and as good a Catholike if not better then Mr. Fitzherbert is if we will dulie consider the true nature and definition of a Catholike and that he is no true Catholike who with true Catholike and supernaturall faith beleeueth doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions and which consequently are subiect to errour to which true Catholike faith cannot in any wise be exposed 6. Secondly it is vntrue that I doe presume so much of my owne skill and strength that I dare aduenture to wrest out the club of Hercules his hand as my Aduersarie affirmeth or to encounter vpon equall tearmes with Card. Bellarmine or any one of those learned writers whom I named in my Disputation accounting my selfe to be farre inferior to euery one of them in skill and strength only excepting this my Aduersarie whose skill and strength I doe not greatly feare it being well knowne of what sufficiencie he is and that his skill in Philosophie or Schoole Diuinitie is not great although he hath prettie skill in making vse of other mens labours and answering in English what other men haue before replied in Latine but if Hercules will leaue his club and fight with a bulrush it is no great maistrie for a weaker man to withstand him if Card. Bellarmine insteed of the expresse words of holy Scripture and the true meaning thereof so declared to be by the ancient Fathers or the vniuersall Church or vndoubted definitions of Generall Councels or necessarie inferences deducted from them which are the only weapons wherewith Catholike doctrine can be conuinced will flie to ouer wrested similitudes false or at the most probable suppositions doubtfull and vncertaine collections to proue an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith as he and the rest who follow him in this controuersie for the Popes power to depose Princes haue done it is an easie matter for one who hath lesse skill and strength then they haue to withstand them yea and to vanquish them and a hundred such others being so weakely armed 7. And therefore very false and friuolous is that which my Aduersarie affirmeth g Num 4. and 5. that Widdrington for so still I will call my selfe taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such art and sleight that whiles he fighteth against the Church he pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authority yet he dedicateth his booke to the Pope laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did But how vainely he laboureth in all this he may easily see if he call to minde what he hath learned in the Catholike Chucrch to wit how inexpugnable is the rocke and seate of Peter which the proud gates of hell cannot ouercome For I doe not batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church whom I reuerence and loue as my deare mother and to whose Censure I euer haue and do also now most humbly submit my selfe and all my writings but the priuate opinions of some few Catholikes especially Iesuites who will needes enforce vpon the Christian world doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of supernaturall faith which onely is the fortresse of the Catholike Church Neither doe I vndermine that immoueable rocke of S. Peter whereon Christ hath built his Church but those scandalous seditious damnable and pernitious positions for so the State of France doth call them of murthering Princes and thrusting them out contrarie to the rules of law and reason of the lawfull possession of their kingdomes by an authority which is only doubfull and questionable Neither do I impugne that authoritie of the Pope which is certainely knowne to be granted him by Christ but that new doctrine of some few writers
which doth attribute to the Pope that authoritie as certainly giuen him by Christ which at the most is disputable whether Christ hath giuen it him or no. 8. I do honour and reuerence in good truth Card. Bellarmine as also many other learned men of his Society and their singular learning I doe greatly admire but that their learning or authoritie ought to be so greatly esteemed of by Catholikes that whatsoeuer they thinke to be a point of faith it is presently to bee taken for a diuine Oracle and the contrarie opinion of other learned Catholikes who haue seene and examined all their grounds reasons and authorities is not to be accounted an opinion but an heresie and that in a matter of such importance which concerneth the dutifull obedience of euery Christian to God and Caesar this is that which I cannot take in good part And might not I pray you the Canonists who do vehemently defend the Popes direct power to dispose of all temporalls against Card. Bellarmine and others whom they are not afraide to call impios politicos wicked politicians h Alexander Carerius pretending thereby to strengthen the fortresse of the Catholike Church to confirme the immoueable rocke of S. Peter and to maintaine the Popes authoritie retort the very same inuectiue which my Aduersarie hath borrowed of Card. Bellarmine i Against Barclay cap. 1. and in the Epistle Dedicatory of his Schulckenius against me vpon Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doth vehemently impugne the aforesaid direct authoritie which the Canonists do yeelde vnto the Pope and with the same facilitie crie out with my Aduersary that he taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such Art and sleigth that whiles he fighteth against the Church hee pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authoritie yet he dedicateth his booke to Pope Sixtus the fift laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did c. And thus much concerning me 9. Now as touching the matter which I handle and the manner of my proceeding therein k Num. 6. Widdringtons speciall purpose saith my Aduersarie in this his late worke is to defend the new oath of allegiance and to confute all the chiefe arguments that haue beene made by any against the seuerall clauses thereof which neuerthelesse he meaneth no other waies to performe as he himselfe often protesteth but only by shewing probably that the said Oath may be taken by Catholikes and that nothing hath beene hitherto or can be obiected against it which hath not been or cannot be probably answered And from hence my Aduersary gathereth certaine admonitions to the Reader which as he saith are worthy to be noted 10. But before I come to set downe his worthy admonitions I thinke it fit to put thee in remembrance Curteous Reader what is the true state of the question betwixt vs concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and what was my chiefe intent in making that disputation of the Oath The maine question therefore betwixt me and these my Aduersaries as my Aduersarie T. F. also confesseth l In the end of his Preface is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which specially is denied in this new oath to wit whether it be a point of faith and not to be denied by any Catholike without note of heresie or errour that the Pope hath by Christ his institution power to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes for any crime whatsoeuer For whereas some very few late writers especially Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuites could not bee content to defend this doctrine for the Popes power call it temporall or spirituall as you will to depose Princes in a moderate manner but would needes take vpon them to make it a point of the Catholike faith and cleerely to demonstrate by the testimonie of holy Scriptures of sacred Councells and by inuincible reasons that Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successors such a temporall power ouer Soueraigne Kings and Princes a doctrine neither practised nor knowne by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and which hath beene a chiefe occasion why this Kingdome is departed from the obedience to the See Apostolike and to condemne all those Catholikes of heresie who do not runne with them in this their violent course when I seriously considered with my selfe what scandall this new doctrine maintained with such violence brought to Catholike Religion what danger to our Prince and Countrey and what great calamities and disgrace English Catholikes do daily suffer thereby as not being accounted true and loyall Subiects to their Prince euen according to the doctrine of those who are esteemed to bee the chiefe pillars of the Catholike Church but so long only as it shall please the Pope I thought my selfe bound by the duty which I do owe to the Catholike Religion to my Prince Country to take away as much as lieth in mee notwithstanding the manifold slaunders which I fore-saw some persons would therefore raise against mee the aforesaid scandals dangers and disgraces and to answer probably all the arguments which Card. Bellarmine hath from the chiefest Authors who haue handled this question collected to demonstrate that it is a certaine and infallible doctrine and the contrary not so much an opinion as an heresie that the Pope hath by Christ his institution authority to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions 11 Wherefore the present controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries is not at this time concerning the absolute proposition to wit whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose the reason why I doe not dispute of this absolute proposition I will declare beneath m Num. 78.79 but concerning the modall whether it be certaine without controuersie and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose as this Author T. F. following Card. Bellarmine and some few Iesuites will needes haue it to be and I with other Catholikes and the Kingdome of France as Petrus Pithaeus witnesseth n In Cod. libert Eccles Galliâ— doe vtterly deny the same And from hence it euidently followeth that although Card. Bellarmine should alledge an hundred Catholike Authors who doe affirme that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet if they doe not also affirme that it is certaine and to be beleeued as a point of faith that the Pope hath such a power they neither confirme his opinion nor gaine-say mine concerning the present controuersie which is now in hand And thus much concerning the matter and manner of my Apologie for the right of Princes Now touching my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegeance although in very deede hitherto I haue not seene any sufficient reason to condemne the sayd oath as vnlawfull and
from the doctrine which I taught in my Apologie it doth necessarily follow that with a probable and safe conscience it may bee taken by any Catholike considering that the Popes power to depose Princes as my Aduersarie heere confesseth is the maine question betwixt him and me and which is specially denied in this oath neuerthelesse I did not intend in that Disputation positiuely to defend the sayd oath but sincerely to propound vnto his Holinesse who as I am fully perswaded was neither truely nor throughly informed of the reasons why English Catholikes thought the sayd oath to bee lawfull all the arguments on both sides which might be vrged against or for the oath affirming nothing of my selfe but as representing the persons of those who either impugned or approoued the sayd oath humbly requesting his Holinesse that after he had diligently examined the reasons on both sides he would bee pleased to satisfie those difficulties which wee propounded and to make knowne to vs English Catholickes those many things which he in his Breues had affirmed to be in this oath cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation 12 Now let vs see those worthy admonitions and those things which my Aduersary sayth are worthy to be noted First therefore sayth he o num 10. Widdrington doth not account his owne opinion and doctrine in this point to be certaine and assured but only probable neither yet condemneth our doctrine as manifestly false or repugnant to faith or to the saluation of soules besides that he confesseth also elsewhere p In Epist Deâ—â—icat in Disp Theolog. cap. 3. num 1. that his Holinesse in three seuerall Breues declared the contrary doctrine contained in the oath to be repugnant to the Catholike faith q Num. 11. whereupon I inferre that it were no lesse then most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly to reiect our doctrine and to adhere to his for if it be wisdome in doubtfull matters to take the surest way it cannot with reason be denied but that albeit his opinion seeme probable to him yet the contrary is much more to be imbraced seeing that by his owne confession it is at least probable and therefore may be imbraced without danger whereas his is not onelie doubted of but also declared to be contrarie to the Catholike faith both by his Holines also by very many learned Catholikes as he himselfe also confesseth r Vbi supra besides that he acknowledgeth also afterwards that there are very few Authors extant Å¿ Cap. 3 sâ—â— 3. num 15. which doe deny our doctrine in comparison of those that teach and defend it whereto I also adde that it is altogether conforme to the practise of the Church confirmed by diuerse generall Councels as I haue showed particularly in my Supplement so as no man that hath care of his soule Supplem cap. 2 â—â—o 76. 〈◊〉 can haue any reason to venter it vpon his opinion impugned and condemned by so great authority when our doctrine may by his owne confession be securely followed without doubt or danger 13. But marke Courteous Reader how many frauds and falshoods my Aduersarie hath here committed And first how cunningly hee would deceiue thee by not distinguishing the absolute proposition concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is not now in question from the modall which onely is now in controuersie For although I do not take vpon me at this present to condemne that opion for the Popes power to depose Princes as manifestly false or to defend the contrary as certaine and without controuersie yet it is vntrue that I doe not assuredly account that opinion and doctrine which affirmeth it to bee a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and the contrary to be hereticall to be absolutely false and to vse the words of the Parliament of Paris against Suarez doctrine to be scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious 14. Secondly it is also vntrue that I doe acknowledge that there are very few Authors extant which doe deny their doctrine concerning the modall proposition in comparison of those that doe teach and defend it for although I affirmed that very few Authors whose writings are now extant in comparison of others who defend this temporall power of the Pope are to be found that deny his authority to depose Princes the reasons whereof which I alledged in that place and before in my Apologie because they clean ouerthrow the common argument taken from the multitude of Authors who doe cleaue to their opinion touching the absolute proposition both my Aduersarie and D. Schulckenius also do altogether conceale yet touching the modall proposition I confidently auerred that there were very few writers and those for the most part Iesuites who doe hold this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a poynt of faith For behold my expresse words u In Pres Resp Apâ—log nu 10. And froÌ„ hence any man may plainly perceiue that Widdrington doth not oppose himselfe either against all Diuines or against the common opinion of the Church or Doctours but onely against very few writers considering that among those seuentie Authors related by Card. Bellarmine very few are to be found who although they are perchance of opinion that the Pope by Christ his institution hath authoritie to depose Princes for enormious crimes doe so peremptorily adhere to that opinion as to taxe them with heresie who doe maintaine the contrary And if Card. Bellarmine in the later Editions of his bookes yet bringing no new reason to confirme his former opinion had not condemned the contrarie opinion of Catholikes as hereticall but had suffred euery man to perseuere without note of heresy in his owne opinion which he should thinke to be the truer he should not doubtlesse haue had Widdrington to be his Aduersarie or to haue attempted to ouerthrow his reasons as insufficient to demoÌ„strate an vndoubted point of faith 15 Thirdly it is also vntrue that confesse the Popes Holinesse to haue declared in his Brâ—ues that the doctrine which denyeth his power to depose Princes is contrary to the Catholike faith I onely confesse that in his Breues he hath declared the Oath to be vnlawfull for that it containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation but what these many things be his Holinesse doth not expresse in his Breues neither as yet hath he been pleased to signifie it vnto vs although we haue both by priuate letters and also publike writings most humbly and instantly requested it at his hands I did indeede confesse that his Holinesse was by all likelyhood misinformed of those many things which he thought in this oath to be flat contrary to faith and saluation by Card Bellarmine who hath publikely in his bookes declared that the Popes spirituall Primacie his power to excommunicate and to binde and loose are plainely denied in this Oath and the Kings spirituall Supremacie is therein acknowledged but how vntrue this is I
of that singular opinion and of one onely Doctor and seeth it to bee grounded vpon the authoritie of one onely Doctor hee ought not to account it probable to this effect that he may prudently follow it in practise against his owne and the common opinion of all others 46 But if it be not a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour although the learned men of the contrarie opinion doe vrge for their doctrine some law decree or definition which the contrarie part hath seene and examined and hath in some sort answered therevnto it is lawfull for any learned man according to Vasquez to follow in practise that other lesse secure and lesse common opinion against his owne opinion albeit it be the more secure and common opinion For when we perceiue saith Vasquez that the Authors of the contrarie opinion haue seene and considered all the grounds and reasons for our opinion and haue obserued that obiection taken from that law or decree and haue endeauoured to answer them and that they were not convinced by them we may iustly thinke that we may prudently and lawfully follow in practise the opinion of those other men against our owne neither ought wee to suppose that our reasons are euident demonstrations and which doe make the contrarie opinion to be voide of all probabilitie 47 And this doctrine of Vasquez is euident in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope aboue a Generall Councell which hath been so long debated betwixt the Doctors of Rome and Paris For both of them affirme that their opinion is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is confirmed by the practise and decrees yea and definitions of Generall Councels and yet both of thē because they are approued by learned Catholike Diuines are probable although as Nauarra h In cap. Nouit de Iudicijs notab 3. nu 84. out of Ioannes Maior a learned Diuine of Paris relateth that the opinion of the Parishioners is not permitted to bee defended at Rome nor the opinion of the Romanes to bee defended at Paris And therefore into what fowle tearmes trow you would my Aduersarie breake if the Doctors of Paris who doe resolutely hold that the Pope is inferiour to a Generall Councell should argue against Card. Bellarmine and others of his opinion in the same manner as this fowle mouthed man who hath still in his mouth absurd ridiculous impertinent foolish impudent temerarious impious hereticall or erroneous that their doctrine hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also it is grounded vpon holy Scriptures confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Counsels but especially of the famous Councell of Constance which did not onely ordaine the practise of it in some cases and therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue but did also expressely define and consequently command all Christians to beleeue the verity of that doctrine and that therefore Card. Bellarmine is falne into heresie for not beleeuing that doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleeued defined and ordained to be practised and also to be beleeued 48 By this it is apparant that Vasquez doctrine is to be vnderstood generally of all cases questions and opinions which are in controuersie among learned Catholikes although one or both parts doe pretend their doctrine to be of faith and to be grounded vpon the authoritie of holy Scripture or some decree of Pope or Generall Councell and that learned Catholikes ought not according to Vasquez to bee easily condemned of temeritie and much lesse of errour or heresie who doe not follow the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of other Catholike Doctors although this common opinion seeme to some followers thereof to be an vndoubted doctrine and to be confirmed by some Decree Law or Canon of Pope or Generall Counsell which Decree Law or Canon those learned Catholikes haue seene examined and answered although their answeres doe not satisfie the contrarie side And conformably to this doctrine did Vasquez as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation dispute that question whether there be any habits which are infused by God alone For although he expressely affirmeth that it is the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of the Schoole-Diuines that there bee certaine vertues called Theologicall Faith Hope and Charitie which of their owne nature are infused by God alone and that some Doctors as Andreas Vega doe hold this doctrine to bee of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall or erroneous endeauouring to proue the same not out of the Councell of Vienna which did onely declare it to be the more probable opinion but out of the Councell of Trent yet Vasquez would not condemne the contrarie opinion not onely of heresie as my Aduersarie would cunningly perswade the Reader but not so much as of temeritie From whence I inferred that according to Vasquez doctrine which my Aduersarie fraudulently concealeth the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of Schoole-Diuines and which some of them thinke to be a point of faith may sometimes bee reiected without any note not onely of heresie or errour but also of temeritie which doctrine doth cleerely satisfie the common argument drawne from the authoritie of learned men who hold the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and consequently the oath to bee repugnant to faith and saluation And thus much concerning the first and second point of my Aduersaries fourth Admonition 49 As touching the third point it is apparantly vntrue and very iniurious to Catholikes and to Catholike Religion to affirme that the Arrians or any other heretikes may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for the establishing of their heresies then may I and those other Catholikes who hold it probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes For besides that the Arrian heresie was expressely condemned in the first eight Generall Counsels and afterwards in many others and the Arrians haue euer been accounted heretikes by ancient Fathers and all other Catholikes wheras there cannot be alledged so much as any shew or colour of any one definition of a Generall Councell wherein the doctrine which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is condemned for hereticall but all the proofes that my Aduersaries alledge that the Pope hath such a power are onely ouer-wrested similitudes facts examples inferences and supposisitions of their owne drawne from the authoritie of holy Scriptures Popes or Councels when the Philosophers and Diuines doe affirme that the authoritie of learned and skilfull men sufficeth to make the doctrine or opinion probable which they approue they vnderstand of learned and skilfull men approuing a doctrine belonging to the art which they professe according to that vulgar maxime vnicuique in sua arte perito credendum est we must giue credit to euery man skilfull in his art 50 So that in a point of Law the authoritie of skilfull Lawiers and not of skilfull Physitions in a point of Physike the
Posseuine did not condemne the man but the doctrine which was against the Master of the Sentences But truly I can not but greatly maruell how Posseuine could be so grossely mistaken vnlesse he would of set purpose forge something whereby he might disgrace Trithemius For if he had but briefely runne ouer that place of Trithemius which he citeth he could not but haue seene that Trithemius did only affirme Ioachims doctrine and not his person to be condemned in the Councell Tractatus autem quem scripsit c. But the Treatise saith Trithemius p In verbo Ioachim Abbas in the place cited by Posseuine which Abbot Ioachim wrote against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris is condemned in a Generall Councell as appeareth in the beginning of the Decretalls Damnamus 11 Wherefore to returne backe D. Schulckenius his words what neede had D. Schulckenius to aske aduice of Posseuine touching Trithemius his errours seeing that Posseuine himselfe hath therein not onely grossely erred but also in other his relations as in affirming Iohn Gerson Chancelour of Paris to be of the Order of the Celestines wherein also Card Bellarmine in his late treatise of Ecclesiasticall writers hath erred with him yea and sometimes which is lesse excusable when of set purpose he pretendeth to recall and amend his former errour as in verbo Durandus à S. Porciano whom in his former Edition as he saith for I neuer saw it he affirmed to be Bishop of Melda as truly he was and of the Order of S. Dominike and now forsooth in his corrected Edition he will needs haue him to be Bishop of Liege and to haue liued in the yeare 1035. and that Hermannus Contractus who liued in the yeare 1054. maketh mention of him and yet he will also haue him to be of the Order of Dominike And neuerthelesse Posseuine himselfe a little before q In verbo Dominicus Guzmannus affirmed that S. Dominike dyed in the yeare 1221. which was two hundred fourteene yeares after Durandus flourished Now let D. Schulckenius or any other who maketh so great account of Posseuines Apparatus either accord these two that Durandus à S. Porciano was according to Posseuine of the Order of S. Dominike and yet that according to the same Posseuine he liued well neere 200. yeares before S. Dominike did institute his Order or else not to giue hereafter so great credit to all that Posseuine affirmeth seeing that he hath so grossely erred both in falsly taxing Trithemius of those errours and also which is more grosse when purposely he endeauoured to amend his owne errour 12 Lastly we haue saith D Schulckenius the common opinion of Doctours and decrees of Councells which doe make the matter cleare And therefore although among learned Diuines and Lawyers there be a controuersie concerning the manner how the Pope may doe it yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it But first we haue the authoritie of Trithemius that it is a controuersie among the Schoolemen and as yet not decided by the Iudge not onely in what manner the Pope may depose the Emperour but whether he hath any power at all to depose him Then we haue the authoritie of Almaine a learned Schoole-Diuine and a Classicall Doctour that it is the opinion of very many Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can onely inflict spirituall Censures and not any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment And therefore although it be the more common opinion of Doctours that the Pope hath power to depose Princes especially of Lawyers who as Pope Pius the fift did plainely confesse to that famous Lawyer Nauarre r in Comment super cap Non liceat Papae 12. q. 2. § 3. num 6. doe attribute more authoritie to the Pope then is sufficient for that the greatest part of those Authours cited by Card Bellarmine who in expresse words affirme that the Pope hath such a power are Lawyers men also for the most part vnskilfull in Diuine Scriptures and the law of God as Dominicus Sotus affirmeth z Jn 4o. dist 18. q. 1. ar 1. yet it is not the more common opinion of Doctours that it is a cleare and certaine doctrine not to be called in question by any Catholike that the Pope hath such a power 13. Few only Diuines there are for the most part Iesuites who of late yeares haue by might and maine endeauoured without sufficient grounds to make the matter cleare and to be an vndoubted point of faith But vntill they bring more cleare decrees of Councells or more pregnant proofes from holy Scriptures then hitherto they haue brought they will neuer make the matter cleare but still it will remaine a controuersie among Catholikes not only in what maner the Pope may but whether he hath any power at all to depose the Emperour or no as it was in Trithemius and Almaines time since which time no cleare decree of any Councell hath been made to that purpose for all the decrees of Councells which by Card. Bellarmine are vrged to proue that doctrine and haue been answered by me and others and shall beneath be answered more at large were long before their time And thus much concerning the first authoritie of Trithemius and Almaine Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer is briefly debated 1. THe second testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation and also in my Apologie to proue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes not to be certaine a Jn verbo Albericus Roxiatus without controuersie or a point of faith was of Albericus Roxiatus a most famous Professour as Trithemius writeth of the Canon and Ciuill Law and a man excellently learned and according to Fa. Azor b Lib. 2. Iust cap. 14. a Classical Doctour who liued in the yeare 1340. aboue a hundred yeares since the Councell of Lateran which is now so greatly vrged For this Authour calleth in question foure of the most principall Canons or Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law which do seeme most to fauour their authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of the temporalls especially of the Romane Emperour among which one is that famous and so often inculcated by my Aduersaries sentence of deposition denounced against Fredericke the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and he affirmeth that none of them are in his opinion agreeable to law or right but that they were made by Popes against the rights and libertie of the Empire 2. The Pastours of the Church saith he c In Dictionario verbo Electio putting their sickle into others haruest haue made foure Decrees or Decretalls The one concerning the election of the Emperour which beginneth Venerabilem and of this it is there noted by all men An other is about the deposing of Friderike the Emperour
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
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo◠bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in
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
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
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
forth for the Church but the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but indeed at the booke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour 2. The pricipall words of Pope Boniface besides those which hee doth imitate out of S Bernard are That in the Catholicke and Apostolike Church whereof Christ is the head and S. Peter his Vicar and in her power there be two swords the spirituall and the temporall as we are instructed by those words of the Gospell Behold heere that is in the Church two swords c. And that the sword must be vnder the sword the temporall authoritie subiect to the spirituall power For the spirituall the truth so witnessing hath to instruct the earthly power and to iudge if it be not good So of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical power the prophesie of Ieremy is verified behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer nations and Kingdomes and the rest which follow Therefore if the earthly power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by the spirituall power but if the inferiour spirituall power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by her superiour but if the supreme goeth out of the way shee can be iudged by God alone and not by man according to the testimony of the Apostle That the spiritual man iudgeth all things and he is iudged by none From all which Card. Bellarmine who only relateth S. Bernards words and affirmeth that Pope Boniface doth imitate the same doth conclude that the meaning of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface was to affirme that both the temporall and spiritual sword are in the power of the Pope that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword and because the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall therefore the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 3. Thus you see what S. Bernard and Pope Boniface doe affirme and also that Card. Bellarmine inferreth and concludeth from their words And although to this which Card. Bellarmine inferreth from their words there needeth no answere at all for that I doe willingly grant all that which he doth inferre to wit that the temporall sword is subiect in some cases to the commanding power of the Pope and that the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church shall require it seeing that the question betweene mee and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning the Popes commanding power and whether the Pope may command a King to vse the temporal sword in the necessitie of the Church as I haue oftentimes in all my Bookes expresly affirmed but concerning the Popes coerciue power and whether if a King will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope hath power to vse it himselfe and may constraine a King not only with spirituall but also with temporal compulsion and punishment to fulfill his iust command Neuerthelesse because Card. Bellarmine hath now in his Schulckenius taken some exceptions against the answere which I made in my Apologie to the authortie of S. Bernard and consequently of Pope Boniface who as hee saith doth imitate S. Bernards words I thinke it not amisse to set downe my answere and also his Reply that so the Reader may cleerely perceiue whether S. Bernard doth fauour or disfauour Card. Bellarmines opinion concerning the Popes power to vse the temporall sword in case a temporall King will not vse it at the Popes command and whether D. Schulckenius hath sufficiently confuted the answere which I did make to the aforesaid authoritie of S. Bernard 4 Thus therefore I answered in my Apologie d Nu. 196. seq that the words of S. Bernard doe only signifie that both the materiall and the spirituall sword doe belong in some sort to the Church and are subiect vnto hir not for that the ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the Ecclesiasticall or that the Church hath by the law of God any power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good but because Christian Princes being children of the Church are bound and consequently the Church may command them and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell them therevnto in defence of their holy mother the Church to vse the temporall sword Wherfore although the Church when she hath present need hath power to command or forbid the vse of the materiall sword or rather without any positiue or constitutiue command of the Church Secular Princes are bound in that case to vse it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Church hir selfe hath dominion right or power to vse the corporall sword seeing that to command the vse thereof and to vse it hir selfe are farre different things as I haue shewed before c Num. 99. yea and the very words of S. Bernard doe plainly shew as much For otherwise if the Church that is as shee consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power should haue the dominion of the materiall sword and might vse it in order to spirituall good it might by the law of God be drawne forth and vsed not only for the Church but also by the Church not onely with the hand of the souldier but also of the Priest which neuerthelesse S. Bernard doth affirme to be against our Sauiours command who commanded S. Peter to put vp his sworde into the scabberd 5 Wherefore I doe not mislike that very exposition if it be rightly vnderstood which Card Bellarmine him selfe gathereth from those words of S. Bernard who in this very place as you haue seen doth affirme that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface did by those words signifie that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword as a temporall Prince hath per se and properly the materiall sword and because the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidens to command temporall things in order to spirituall good but not to punish temporally by way of coercion but only spiritually as I haue often declared therefore the Pop-hath power to command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 6 Therefore the temporall sword according to the opinion of S. Bernard doth belong to the Pope and is called his sword for that when the necessitie of the Church doth require it is to bee drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the souldier but not of the Priest at the becke indeede or direction of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour By which last words S. Bernard doth signifie that the Emperour in vsing the temporall sword for the necessitie of the Church is indeed to bee directed by the Pope for that the Pope ought to declare when the
Priest but at the command of the Emperour and I also say the very same But S. Bernard doth not say that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword per se but only in some sort to be drawne forth for the Church not by the Church c. From which words it is plainely gathered that the materiall sword or temporall power is according to S. Bernard subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidons in spiritualls not in temporalls to be commanded in some case by the Priest as he is a Priest but not to be drawne forth or vsed by a Priest as he is a Priest but as he is a temporall Prince or a publike or priuate souldier In like manner I say with Pope Boniface that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but Pope Boniface doth not say that the sword is per se vnder the sword and the temporall power is per se subiect to spirituall authoritie and therefore seeing that hee doth imitate S. Bernards words as Card. Bellarmine here affirmeth he is to be vnderstood in that sense as S. Bernard vnderstood them to wit that the sword is vnder the sword in some sort and the temporall power subiect to the spirituall in some sort to be drawne foorth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church c. as I now declared 14. Thirdly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the Church hath not by the law of God power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good he speaketh too ambiguously For the law of God doth not command Ecclesiasticall men to vse with their own hand the materiall sword neither doth it so forbid them but that his lawfull for them in some cases to vse it also with their owne hand But neuerthelesse according to S. Bernards opinion Christ gaue both the swordes to the Church and by this he gaue her power to vse the materiall sword in that manner as doth beseem her to wit by the seruice or hands of others in directing Secular Princes that they draw it forth or put it in the scabard as it is expedient to the honour of God and the saluation of Christian people 15. But my words are very plaine and no whit ambiguous I say that the Church taking the Church not materially for all the members of the Church but for Churchmen formally as they are Churchmen or which is all one for the Church as it consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power are according to S. Bernards doctrine commanded not to draw forth or vse with their owne hands the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good For S. Bernards words are plaine why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which thou wast once not only counselled but cōmanded to put vp into the scabard c. But if the Pope becom a temporall Prince or a Priest do lawfully becom a Soldier to fight either in his own defence or in the defence of others which Christ did not forbid although the Church in some cases hath forbidden it neither I nor S. Bernard doe denie that the Pope as he is a temporall Prince or a Priest as he is a lawfull Souldier hath power to vse with their owne hands the materiall sword Neither did S. Bernard euer grant that the Pope as he is Pope or a Priest as he is a Priest or which is all one by his spirituall or Priestly authority hath power to draw foorth or to vse with his owne hands the materiall sword although the Pope by his spirituall power may direct and command a temporall Prince to draw it foorth and vse it when the necessitie of the Church shall require which onely D. Schulckenius in this paragraph doth affirme 16. Fourthly that is false saith D. Schulckenius g Pag. 387. which Widdrington affirmeth that the materiall sword in that onely sense doth belong to the Church because Secular Princes being children of the Church are bound to fight in defence of the Church their mother For S. Bernard doth grant much more to the Ecclesiasticall Prince when he saith Therefore it is also thine to wit the materiall sword And beneath Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword are the Churches but the materiall sword is to bee drawen foorth for the Church and the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but truly at the becke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour Where S. Bernard doth not only signifie that Souldiers or Princes are bound to draw foorth the sword for the Church but also at the becke or direction of the Priest that is with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperour 17. But anie man who readeth ouer but sleightly my answer in that place will easily perceiue that this is a meere cauill and also a plaine vntruth for that in expresse words I doe affirme that Secular Princes and Souldiers are according to S. Bernard to draw foorth and vse the materiall sword for the necessity of the Church at the becke counsell direction yea and command of the Priest which is as much as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth S. Bernard to say although S. Bernard did expressely distinguish betwixt becke and command at the becke saith he of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour whereby it is manifest that S. Bernard did not account becke and command to be all one and consequently hee did not approoue the same subordination to be betwixt Secular Princes and the Priest in vsing the materiall sword as is betwixt Souldiers and the Emperour For albeit S. Bernard by the name of becke did not onely vnderstand aduise and counsell which Christian Princes in all their weightie affaires concerning the Law of God and Christian Religion ought to demand of learned Priests and who are skilfull in the Law of God and Christian Religion but also a command to fight and vse the materiall sword in defence of the Church and Christian Religion to the obseruing of which command Christian Princes may as also I sayd by Ecclesiasticall censures bee compelled yet this command being a declaratiue command which doth onely declare a former command of God and nature and doth not make a new bond but onely declare and signifie a former obligation may rather be called a beckening and signifying that Christian Princes are by the Law of God bound in that case to draw foorth fight and vse the materiall sword then a true proper and constitutiue command which doth not onely signifie but also induce a new bond or obligation 18. And in this sense not onely Ioannes Parisiensis whom I cited before h Num. 8. doth vnderstand those words of S. Bernard at the becke indeede of the Priest but also our learned Countri-man Alexander of Hales
to constraine her to change her gouernment and to depose Princes and to institute others when she can not otherwise defend her spirituall good And in this manner are to bee vnderstood the words of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface c. Thus Card. Bellarmine So that according to Card. Bellarmine S. Bernards words doe proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command the materiall sword but also to vse it vnlesse the materiall sword is not to be comprehended vnder the name of temporalls And therefore not I but D. Schulckenius doth of set purpose decline the difficultie and also vntruly affirmeth that Card Bellarmine did not intend to proue in his second argument that the Pope hath power to vse the materiall sword but onely that the materiall sword is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power seeing that Card Bellarmines second argument doth most clearely shew the contrarie 23 But marke now how clearely D. Schulckenius doth either contradict S. Bernards words and him selfe or else fowly equiuocate and confirme the answer which I gaue to the authoritie of S. Bernard I affirmed that S. Bernards words are so to be vnderstood that it is lawfull for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men to command in some cases the vse of the materiall sword but that to vse the materiall sword themselues as they are Ecclesiasticall men they are forbidden by the expresse command of Christ Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth k Pag. 390. that for as much at appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword he assenteth altogether to S. Bernard that it doth not beseeme Ecclesiasticall men to vse the materiall sword but onely the spirituall and thus much onely those words of our Sauiour doe signifie Returne thy sword into the scabbard and those of S. Bernard why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which once thou wast commanded to put into the scabard For here it is not meant of the law of God by which Ecclesiasticall men are absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword seeing that it is manifest that in some cases and especially in defence of themselues and of their countrey this is lawfull but of the command of God by which Cleargie men are instructed and taught that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall but with the spirituall sword Thus D. Schulckenius 24 But if D. Schulckenius meane that Ecclesiasticall men are onely for decencie which implyeth no command not to vse the materiall sword he plainly contradicteth S. Bernard to whom neuerthelesse hee affirmeth altogether to assent who expressely auerreth that the Pope in S. Peter was not only counsailed but commanded not to vse the materiall sword And therefore S. Bernards words can not otherwise be vnderstood but that Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men and the Pope as Pope are by the command of Christ absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword for S. Bernard did not intend to affirme that Ecclesiasticall men if they become temporall Princes or being considered as they are priuate men or citizens and parts or members of the temporall common-wealth are by the command of Christ forbidden to vse the materiall sword and to fight in defence of their owne persons or of their Countrey 25 Wherefore those last words of D. Schulckenius to wit that S. Bernards saying is to be vnderstood of the command of God by which Cleargie men are instructed and taught that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall but with the spirituall sword are somewhat equivocall For if D. Schulckenius doe onely vnderstand of such an instruction which implyeth no command of Christ but onely a certaine decencie counsell and aduise for that it doth not beseeme the perfection of those men who haue a spirituall vocation to fight with the materiall sword hee plainly contradicteth himselfe and also S. Bernard himselfe for that hee acknowledgeth a command of God whereby Cleargie men are instructed c. but this instruction supposeth no command of God S. Bernard also he contradicteth who expressely speaketh of a command whereby Ecclesiasticall men are by the law of Christ and not only of the Church forbidden to vse the materiall sword which command of Christ as I said before can bee no other then that Ecclesiasticall men can not as they are Ecclesiasticall men vse the materiall sword for that although the Ecclesiasticall power doth according to S. Bernard and the truth extend to the beckoning or declaratiue commanding of the materiall sword in some cases yet it doth not extend to the vsing thereof but this power to vse the materiall sword doth proceed from the law of nature or the ciuill power who doe giue authoritie to euery man whether he be a Clerke or Laike in case at least wise of necessitie to vse the materiall sword in defence of his owne person or of his countrey And if D. Schulckenius only intend to signifie thus much by those last words of his which in very deede can not be otherwise vnderstood vnlesse wee will make them repugnant to themselues hee doth fauour not contradict confirme and not impugne my answer 26 Fiftly obserue good Reader how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift off the last and principall Answer which I made to the authoritie of S. Bernard I granted as you haue seene before that the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to beckon or command the Emperour to vse the materiall sword when the necessitie of the Church shall require and to punish him with Ecclesiasticall punishments if he shall refuse to obey his iust command or becke and I affirmed that this is the most that can be gathered from those words of S. Bernard But if the Emperour should refuse to vse the materiall sword at the Popes command or becke I affirmed that it could not be inferred from that authoritie of S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope could vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of his temporall dominion or power to vse the materiall sword for this were to vse and to dispose of temporalls and implyeth a power to vse and draw forth the materiall sword it selfe which S. Bernard expressely denyeth to the Pope and that therefore S. Bernards authoritie doth nothing fauour but clearely contradict the Popes power I doe not say to command temporalls but to dispose of temporalls and to vse temporalls as Ioannes Parisiensis and Alexander of Hales l Num. 18. did before affirme Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius replyeth m Pag. 393. in this manner 27. Thou didst runne well who hath hindered thee so soone not to obey the truth For now thou dost not follow S. Bernard but William Barclay as thy Master If that the Emperour shall refuse to vse the sword at the becke of the Pope in great necessitie of the Church it is not indeed fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword but hee hath power to constraine the Emperour first with Ecclesiasticall punishments and afterwards
of Princes be in this sense hereticall as in very deed it is And therfore all those Priests who then were Prisoners in Newgate and the Gate-house and now are in Wisbeech being examined by his Maiestses Commissioners vpon certaine articles and did directly answere to the questions which were propounded did agree in this that it was directly and absolutely murther for any man to take away the life of his Maiesty and that the Church could not define it to be lawfull for any man to kill his Maiesty although for the point of deposing some of them answered otherwise some others declined the question and many of them did insinuate that as yet this point touching the Popes power to dedose Princes is not defined by the Church 103 And although his Maiesty doth alleage much more Scripture to condemn the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then I doe for the condemnation of violent attempts against their persons yet it cannot be denied both that his Maiesty might haue brought more plaine and pregnant places against the doctrine of murthering Princes if he had thought it needefull and not supposed it to be a manifest vntruth and condemned by the common coesent also of Catholikes and also that all those places which his Maiesty bringeth to proue that Subiects owe ciuill obedience to temporall Princes and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall power to depriue Princes of their temporall kingdomes doe more forcibly conclude against violent attempts against their sacred persons and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power to murther kill or depriue them of their liues which bloody punishments Ecclesiasticall mildnes doth so much abhorre 104 Neither doe I take the word murthered in that clause of the oath as it doth formally signifie an vnlawfull act and a mortall sinne and in that sense apply the precept Thou shalt not kill to this clause of the oath as my Aduersary would perswade the Reader but I take murthered in that clause as it doth denote materially the killing of Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope And I affirme that the killing of such Princes is directly and absolutely a mortall sinne and is that murther or killing which is forbidden by the law of God and nature reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and especially in those two places which the Author of the English Dialogue whose obiection against that clause of the oath I tooke vpon mee to answere did alleadge The first place 1 Reg. 26. Kill him not for who shall extend his hand against the Lords annointed and be innocent doth more particularly belong to Princes The second place Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill is common also to priuate men and therefore much more to be ayplyed to the killing of Princes 105. Neither is it necessary as I obserued in my Appendix y part 2. sec 5. nu 4. against Suarez to make that position contained in the Oath to be hereticall and repugnant to Gods commandement that the Scripture should haue added Thou shalt not kill Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope It is sufficient that all killing both of priuate men and much more also of temporall Princes who haue in their handes the materiall sword it selfe and supreme power to kill or saue is vnlawfull and forbidden by this precept which is not warrantable either by other places of holy Scripture or declared by the Church to bee lawfull and to haue sufficient warrant Now it is manifest that neither the Church nor any one Catholike Doctour euer taught that the Popes sentence of excommunication or depriuation although wee should grant that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes by way of sentence doth giue sufficient warrant or authority to Subiects to kill their Prince for that the Popes sentence of depriuation doth at the most by the consent of all Catholicks depriue a Prince of his right to reigne but not of his corporall life or of his right to liue And thus much concerning the antecedent proposition 106 Lastly to say something also concerning the consequent although as you haue seene I do vtterly deny that to abiure this doctrine and position as hereticall That Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other it is necessary by vertue of the forme of words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification and by force of the coniunction disiunctiue or that both parts of the disiunction bee abiured as hereticall neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant that by vertue of the matter both parts of that disiunctiue proposition may bee truely abiured as hereticall if wee take the word hereticall as by many learned Catholickes it is taken in a true proper and vsuall signification For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue out of Alphonsus de Castro z Lib 1. aduershaereses cap 8. Didaecus Couerruuias a Lib. 4. variaâ— resolut cap. 14. and others that although the Catholike Church can determine of heresie yet an assertion is not therefore heresie because the Church hath defined it but because it is repugnant to Catholike faith or which is all one to that which is reuealed by God For the Church by her definition doth not make such a position to be heresie seeing that it would be heresie although she should not define it but the Church causeth this that by her censure she maketh knowne and manifest to vs that to bee heresie which before was not certainly knowne whether it might iustly be called heresie or no. 107. For the whole Church excluding Christ her principall head hath not power to make a new Ariicle of faith which neuerthelesse shee might doe if she could make an assertion to be hereticall But that the Church hath not power to make a new Article of faith it is conuinced by manifest reason For euery assertion is therefore called Catholike for that it is reuealed by God Seing therefore that diuine reuâ—lation doth not depend vpon the approbation or declaration of the Church the declaration of the Church doth not make that Catholike which is reuealed by God The Church therefore doth determine that this is reueaâ—ed by God but shee doth not make that which is reuealed by God to be true for if such a verity be called Catholike for that it is contained in holy Scriptures seeing that such a verity to bee contained in holy Scriptures doth not depend vpon any humane will but vpon God alone the Author of those Scriptures it is manifest by this reason that the Church can doe nothing at all that such a truth doth belong to faith For the holy Scriptures haue this of themselues that wee are bound to beleeue them in all things Wherefore the Church defining any thing to be of faith although she doth certainly define and cannot erre yet by her definition she doth not make that truth to bee Catholike faith For shee did therefore define that truth to be Catholike because that truth
depriue a Prince is to take away by lawfull sentence his Regall authority and in this branch is referred to the Pope but to depose a Prince is to thrust him out of the possession of his kingdome and in this branch is referred to Subiects or any other whatsoeuer 113. The falshood therefore of the aforesaid position may be gathered partly from holy Scripture f Mat. 22. Render to Caesar the thinges which are Caesars which precept is plainly vnderstood not onely of rendring to Caesar that which is Caesars but also of not taking away from him that which is his and which he lawfully possesseth as also contrary wise the plaine meaning of that precept of the Decalogue Thou shalt not steale g Exod. 20. is not onely that wee must not take away vniustly that thing which is our neighbours but also that we must render to him that which is his owne And partly it may be gathered from the most true principles of the Diuines and Lawyers to wit that no man is to be put out of his lawfull possessions vntill the right of the aduerse part be sufficiently decided 114 Seeing therefore that this question concerning the Popes power to depriue Princes is not as yet sufficiently decided for that as yet the Iudge hath not determined the controuersie as Trithemius h In Chron. Monâ—st Hâ—rsa ad annum 1106. well affirmed and we also aboue i Cap. 3. sec 3 haue shewed so long as it is in question among Catholikes and probably disputed on both sides whether the Pope hath such authority to depriue Princes or no they cannot by vertue of any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation made by the Pope against them be deposed by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer or which is all one be violently by their Subiects or any other thrust out from their Kingdomes which they doe rightfully possesse By this therefore which hath bene said it is manifest enough that according to both these answers although many doe like best the former that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer may truely lawfully and without any danger of periury be abiured as impious and hereticall doctrine Thus I answered in my Theol. Disputation 115 Now against this Answere M. Fitzherbert obiecteth thus Thâ—s second answere saith he k Cap. 4. nu 25. is sufficiently confuted by the words of the law or oath which as I haue signified ought to be taken vnderstood in thâ—ir most proper cleare sense in which respect the aduerbe as being ioyned to impious and hereticall must needs denote and signifie not a similitude nor yet an equalitie by the way of comparison but a realitie of impiety and heresie in that doctrine for so no doubt doth euery man take it that readeth the said clause 116. But to this it is answered first that M. Fitzherbert abuseth his Reader in corrupting and concealing those rules which I related out of Suarez and others for the vnderstanding of the words of euery law and consequently of this oath For neither did those Authors affirme that the words of euery law ought to be taken and vnderstood in their most proper and most vsuall sense but onely in their proper and vsuall sense taking proper as it is opposed to improper or metaphoricall and not to that which is somewhat the lesse proper and vsuall as it is opposed to vnusuall and not to that which is somewhat the lesse vsuall Neither did they also affirme that the words of euery law are alwaies to be vnderstood in their proper and vsuall signification but the matter also of the law the will of the law-maker and other circumstances are to be regarded Wherefore if at any time saith Suarez l Lib. 6. de Leg. cap. 1. nu 17. the words taken in their proper signification should argue any iniustice or like absurditie in the minde of the Law-maker they must be drawne to a sense although improper wherein the law may be iust and reasonable because this is presumed to be the will of the Law-maker as it hath bene declared by many lawes in ff tit de legibus For in a doubtfull word of the Law saith the Law that sense is rather to be chosen which is void of all default especially seeing that by this the will also of the Law-maker may be gathered For it ought not to be presumed that the Law-maker did intend to commaund any absurd or inconuenient thing vnlesse the contrarie doe euidently appeare 117 But if it chance saith Suarez m Cap. 1. nu 11. that aâ—y words of the Law haue together many proper and vsuall significations then we must obserue that rule which in all ambiguous and equiuocall speeches is wont prudently to be obserued to wit that the matter of the Law with other circumstances be diligently considered for by them the meaning of the words will be easily determined For the words must especially be agreable to the matter according to that rule of the law o Leg. Quoties ff de regulis Iuris whensoeuer the same spech hath two senses let that especially be taken which is more agreable to the matter And therefore if the words be ambiguous or doubtfull they must be drawne to that sense as I said before which containeth no iniustice or absurdity And a benigne and fauourable interpretation if there be no other let is alwaies to be preferred according to that approued rule of the law p Leg. Benignius ff de legibus Lawes are to be interpreted in the more fauourable sense that thereby their will and meaning might be conserued and doubtfull speeches as Emanuell Sa. affirmeth q Verbo Interpretatio nu 17. are to be taken in the better sense and which is more profitable to the speaker This and much more to the same purpose did I there at large relate which my Aduersary here concealeth and which if he had set downe would plainly haue satisfied his chiefest exception by which contrary to the aforesaid rule he laboureth to drawe the wordes of this oath which hee may fauorably and commodiously expound to containe in his opinion an vnlawfull and inconuenient sense 118. And from this which I haue now related it is answered secondly that the Aduerbe as being an Aduerbe of similitude doth most properly most commonly and most vsually denote a similitude or some equality by way of comparison and not an identitie or reality and it sometimes it doth signifie an identitie or reality as many times it doth although seldome in comparison of the other this is by reason of the matter not by vertue of the word or by force of the Aduerbe of similitude as Wherefore to know when the Aduerbe as doth signifie a similitude and when a reality or identity we must regard the matter to which it is applied Seing therfore that this doctriâ—e or position That Princes which be
follow in speculation without doing the Prince who is deposed by the Pope manifest wrong and if he be a subiect by committing that detestable crime of treason in a most high degree 7 For if any one of you should be inlawfull possession of a house iewell or any other thing wherevnto an other man pretendeth a title and claimeth a power to dispose thereof and perchance it is also probable that his title is in very deede the better and his Lawiers doe bring strong reasons and euidences to confirme the same would not you thinke that it were a manifest wrong as in deed it were and against the knowne rules of iustice grounded vpon the light of reason that your Aduersarie or any other in his behalfe notwithstanding the probabilitie of his title should put you out of possession and take it away from you by violence before the Iudge had decided the controuersie 8 And if any one should Reply and say that the Pope is our Soueraignes Iudge to whom also all Christian Princes are subiect and that hee hath decided this controuersie betwixt him and our Prince and defined that this his title to depose our Prince and all other Christian Princes is a true and not onely pretended a spirituall and not a temporall title he is manifestly deceiued For neither is the Pope the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes wherin they are supreme and subiect to none but God neither hath the Pope as yet decided this controuersie or defined by any Generall Councell or any other authenticall instrument for I will not at this time contend what authority the Pope hath to define matters of faith without a Generall Councell that this title and authoritie which hee challengeth to depose Princes is a true spirituall title and an authoritie granted him by the institution of Christ For concerning this point Popes and Emperours haue euer beene at great variance as well said Fa Azor d Tom. 2. lib. 11 cap q. 5.8 and it is in controuersie among Catholike Doctors as I haue conuinced in this Treatise and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge as Abbot Trithemius e See beneath part 1. cap. 1. doth well affirme 9 And if any one should perchance imagine that his Holinesse that now is hath by his late Breues decided the controuersie and defined that hee hath authoritie to depose Princes hee is also most grosely mistaken both for that there is not so much as one word mentioned in any of his Breues concerning his authoritie to depose Princes but onely in generall words he declareth that Catholikes ought not to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation but what those many things be he doth not expresse and perchance he might imagine at the first sight as Card. Bellarmine did that the Popes power to excommunicate to binde and loose to dispence in oathes is denyed in the oath and that it was framed to make a distinction betwixt Protestants and Catholikes touching points of Religion al which how vntrue they are I haue cleerely shewed in my Theologicall Disputation but especially for this reason hee is fowly mistaken because there is not in the Breues any one of those words which according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other Diuines related by me in the aforesaid Disputation f Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 32. seq are required to make an infallible definition and finall decision of a point of faith Neither is euery Breue or Apostolicall letter of the Pope although it be registred in the body of the Canon Law among the Popes Decretall letters a sufficient instrument to define matters of faith for that in them is commonly contained onely the Popes opinion concerning some doubtfull case or question and not a finall decision or definition which all Catholikes are bound to follow Otherwise it must needes be granted that Popes haue defined in their Breues false doctrine and also heresie as may bee seene in the Decretall letters and Breues of Pope Celestine the first Pope Nicolas the third and Pope Boniface the eight as also I obserued in the aforesaid Disputation g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 47.48 10. Yea both the very manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning the oath in such generall words for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation not declaring any one of those many things although he hath been in some sort vrged therunto by his Maiesty h In his Apologie pag. 7. num 5. we also his Catholike subiects whom it most concernes haue most humbly and most earnestly requested it at his hands i Disput The olog in the Epistle to his Holinesse and the forbidding of my bookes also in such generall words not declaring whether they are forbidden for the matter which they handle or for the manner or in respect of the persons against whom they are written or for some other cause but especially and which is more strange and contrary to the practise of all tribunals the commanding of mee to purge my selfe forthwith and that vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures without signifying any crime at all either in generall or particular whereof I should purge my selfe are manifest signes to a prudent man that latet anguis in herba and that they themselues doe distrust their owne cause Can any prudent man imagine that if his Holinesse or the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Inquisition were fully perswaded that the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith defined by the Church so to be as Card. Bellarmine and some few other especially Iesuits would enforce the Christian world to beleeue and that they were able to conuince the same either by holy Scriptures Apostolicall traditions decrees of sacred Councels or any other conuincing reason they would forbeare to signifie the same especially being so greatly vrged thereunto 11. Besides the manner also of my Aduersaries handling this cōtrouersie in corrupting my words peruerting my meaning concealing my answers altering the true state of the question confounding the Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences and being requested to insist vpon any one place of holy Scripture authoritie of sacred Councell or any other Theologicall reason which they shall thinke to be most conuincing that thereby the controuersie may quickly bee at an end their flying from one place of holy Scripture to another from one Councell to another from one Theologicall reason to another their fallacious arguing from the facts of the Apostles yea also and of those Prophets who were no Priests which were done miraculouslie and by an extraordinarie power or by the speciall command of Almightie God to prooue the like ordinarie power to be in spirituall Pastours from the practises of certaine Popes who were resisted therein both by Christian Princes and people to inferre the practise of the Church which is a congregation of all the faithfull
intangle mens consciences by wrangling and cauilling whiles first he requireth euident demonstrations to proue a probable doctrine and secondly dissembleth the true state of the question confounding the absolute proposition and the proofes thereof with the modall which distinction doth expresse the true state of the question and discouereth both his fraude and weakenesse not onely in this but almost in all the rest of his Replyes and thirdly he concealeth the answere which I gaue to this argument taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of other learned men and also the reasons why so many learned Catholikes whose bookes are now extant haue from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth defended this opinion for the Popes power to depose Princes And thus much concerning my Aduersaries second admonition the weakenesse whereof will also presently more cleerely appeare by my answere to his third and fourth admonition 27 Therefore it is to be considered for the third point saith my Aduersarie h Nu. 15. what Widdrington meaneth by a probable opinion or a probable answere which no doubt he vnderstandeth so that whatsoeuer he saith must be held for probable how absurd so euer it be for otherwise he could not challenge to himselfe such a priuiledge of probabilitie as he doth his arguments and answers being so weake and impertinent as you shall finde them to be in which respect he is faine to dissemble the answeres already made by some to his former arguments and authorities in his Apologie whereto he now remitteth his Reader very often without taking so much as any knowledge of the confutation thereof as though the same had neuer been answered or that euery assertion or position of his being once laid downe must needs stand for an eternall law or were a decree of the Medes and Persians i Dan 6. quod non licet immutari 28 But not to returne these bitter speeches of my Aduersarie backe vpon himselfe which with the same facilitie and with farre better reason I might doe first It is very vntrue that I take probable for whatsoeuer I doe say how absurd so euer it be as this man if it were lawfull for mee to vse his absurd word very absurdly affirmeth that without doubt I doe Neither doe I take probable for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie as Cicero tooke probable in his Paradoxes but I take probable as Philosophers and Diuines doe take it as it is distinguished from demonstratiue and fallacious to wit for that which is approued by wise and learned men in the art which they professe which therefore as in speculation may be embraced without any imputation of errour or folly so in practise it may bee followed without any note of imprudence or sinne As in a matter of Physicke that is accounted probable which is approued by learned Physitions of Law by learned Lawiers and of Diuinitie by learned Catholike Diuines Secondly it is also vntrue that I haue in my Theologicall Disputation dissembled the answeres made by some to my former arguments and authorities in my Apologie whereto I remit my Reader oftentimes considering that my Theologicall Disputation was wholly finished and in the presse before the Replyes of D. Schulkenius and of D. Weston and also my Aduersaries Supplement were published so that I could take no notice of them in my Disputation for which cause I was constrained to touch them briefely onely in an Admonition to the Reader But my Aduersarie himselfe to make his owne Replyes to seeme the more probable and my answeres absurd foolish impertinent ridiculous for so hee is pleased to call them is not ashamed to dissemble in many points the true state of the question and also the answeres which in my Theological Disputation I made to his chiefest Replyes especially those whereby hee laboureth to terrifie the timerous consciences of vnlearned Catholikes with the pretence of his new Catholike faith with the authoritie of the Popes Breues and the testimonies of so many learned men who haue condemned the oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation 29. Now let vs see his fourth consideration by which the Reader may perceiue how insufficiently he declareth what is a probable argument or opinion and how little he satisfieth the vnderstanding of vnlearned Catholikes who by his obscure and confuse description of a probable argument cannot perceiue what argument or opinion is probable k Num. 17. Fourthly saith he it is to be considered that to make an argument or proofe probable it sufficeth not that it seeme good and true in it selfe but it must also be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments and proofes of the contrary opinion for often it falleth out that the reasons of one part are so pregnant that they seeme to conuince and yet when they are weighed with the reasons of the other part they are neither pregnant nor so much as probable for according to the old prouerbe one tale is good vntill an other be heard 30. To which purpose it is to be considered that many heretikes and namely the Arians of whom there are many euen at this day both doe and may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for their opinion than Widdrington doth or can for his considering their aboundant allegation of Scriptures their subtill shifts in answering the arguments and obiections of the Catholikes the great multitude of learned men of their Sect in times past and their dignitie in the Church the Conuenticles assembled and held in their fauour and finally the ample propagation of their opinion and Sect especially in the time of Constantius the Emperour For which respects their followers at this day doe hold their doctrine not only for probable but also for infallibly true and condemne the contrary for pernicious heresie whereas Widdringtons grounds and proofes of his opinion seeme to himselfe so weake that he dare not affirme them to be more then probable 31. Therefore as there is no good Christian that doth now hold the arguments of the Arrians to be so much as probable considering the potent reasons and proofes of the Catholike doctrine in that point so albeit the arguments and authorities which Widdrington produceth were they farre more plausible and pregnant then they are yet no Catholike could esteeme them to be any way probable being compared and ballanced with the irrefregable proofes of the other part I meane the arguments and necessarie consequences drawne from the holy Scriptures the authoritie of almost all the learned Doctors and Diuines that haue written of that point and the practise of the Church for some hundreths of yeares confirmed by nine or ten Councells l Sâ—e Supplem chap. 2. num 76. 77. whereof some haue been the greatest that euer were in Gods Church and therefore I say that all this being well weighed no Catholike man of sound wit or iudgment can imagine this mans arguments which he himselfe houldeth but for probable to haue
authoritie of skilfull Physitions and not of Lawiers and in a point of Catholike Religion the authoritie of learned Catholikes and who are skilfull in points of Catholike Religion which they professe and not of heretikes and who doe not professe Catholike Religion doth make the opinion or doctrine which they approue to bee probable And therefore my Aduersarie very insufficiently not to vse those fowle words absurdly ridiculously which hee so often vseth against mee argueth from the authoritie of learned Catholikes to the authoritie of heretikes whose doctrine according to the definition of probable can neuer make the opinions which they approue in points of Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable Neither by this can any point of Catholike faith which is knowne to all learned Catholikes to bee a point of Catholike faith be easily called in question and made onely probable for that no learned Catholike will cal in question any doctrine which is cleerely knowne to be the Catholike faith and as for heretikes their authoritie can neuer make any doctrine belonging any way to Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable 51 But if there should arise any controuersie among learned Catholikes whether this or that doctrine be of faith and in what sense the words of such a text of holy Scripture or of such a Canon or Decree of Pope or Councell are to be vnderstood there is no doubt but that the authoritie of learned Catholikes may in those cases make their opinion probable although other Catholikes would be so stiffe in their owne opinion as to condemne the contrarie part of heresie errour or temeritie A manifest example hereof we haue in the Councell of Constance wherein according to Iohn Gerson and other learned men who were present at that Councell it was expressely defined that the Pope is inferiour and subiect to a Generall Councell lawfully assembled and therefore the contrarie to be flat hereticall but since that other Catholikes especially Romane Diuines haue called that Decree in question and haue endeauoured to answer therevnto affirming that it was only meant of Popes in time of Schisme or that the aforesaid Decree was not confirmed by Pope Martin in the end of the Councell which answeres neuerthelesse doe not satisfie the Doctors of the contrarie opinion I doe not thinke but that my Aduersarie will confesse that the opinion of the Romans may bee accounted probable and that the calling of that Decree in question was not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all heresie and Atheisme 52. But if it should perchance fall out that some Catholikes would be so selfe opinatiue as to affirme without any definition at all of the Church although vnder pretext of zeale and deuotion to the See Apostolike any doctrine to be of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall and other Catholikes although the farre fewer in number should deny the same especially in a matter which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar if the first part only should be permitted to write freely what they please and to taxe the other part of heresie to omit errour temeritie folly ridiculous absurditie and such like and this other part should be forbidden to defend their good names and to answere for themselues I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether this be not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and the vndoubted grounds thereof and to introduce vncertaine opinions for an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith which is to open a wide gap to heresie Atheisme and euident iniustice and to make among Christians a perpetuall dissention betwixt the Cleargie and Laity the temporall and spirituall power Now that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not by any definition at all of the Church declared to bee true my Aduersary cannot denie and that it euer hath been and is impugned by learned Catholikes and the contrarie hath euer beene and is by them approued and therefore it is truly probable and not only hath a pretence of probabilitie I will shew beneath where I will both relate the Catholike Authours who deny this authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes which only is sufficient to make their doctrine probable and also I will discouer the insufficiencie of those Replies which my Aduersary hath made against my answeres And thus much concerning the third point 53. For the fourth and last point consider Catholike Countreimen whether Mr. Fizherbert intendeth to declare vnto you plainly and sincerely this present controuersie and by a cleare explayning of the question to quiet your consciences or rather by wrangling and cauilling to obscure the difficultie and blind your vnderstandings The question betwixt him and mee at this present is whether it be a probable doctrine that the Pope hath not any power by the institution of Christ to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall power and Regall authoritie And there are two only grounds to perswade any man that this or that doctrine or opinion is truely probable The one are called intrinsecall groundes to wit the arguments and reasons which are drawne from holy Scriptures sacred Canons Theologicall reasons and such like to proue that doctrine or opinion and these groundes are proper only to learned men who are able to weigh and examine the arguments on both sides â—â—e other are called extrinsecall grounds which doe onely consist in the authority of those learned men who doe hold that doctrine or opinion because according to that which hath been said before that doctrine is trulie probable which is approued by wise and skilfull men in the art which they professe and by these onely grounds vnlearned men can be perswaded that any doctrine or opinion is truly probable 54. Now my Aduersarie seeing as he saith that all my pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authority of those Authours which I haue brought in my Theologicall Disputation and in my Apologie and partly in the sufficiencie as I suppose of my answeres to their groundes arguments and authorities yet he taketh vpon him in this Reply only to confute some of my answers to their intrinsecall grounds and for the confutation of the authorities which I bring hee remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius who as he saith hath answered particularly to euery one of them Seeing therefore that there is no sufficient way to satisfie the vnderstandings of vnlearned men that the doctrine which holdeth the Pope to haue no authoritie to depose Princes is not truely probable but by shewing that no learned Catholikes do approue the same for that vnlearned men are not able to examine the intrinsecall grounds of any Theologicall question but are only led by authoritie and extrinsecall grounds and if they once perceiue that learned Catholikes doe approue any doctrine they will presently also perceiue that doctrine to bee truly probable is there any likelihood that Mr. Fitzherbert intended to giue satisfaction to his vnlearned
extra de sententia re iudicata cap. Ad Apostolicae in sexto where also of this it is noted by all men An other is concerning the discord betwixt Henry the Emperour and Robert King of Sicily and the sentence of treason published by the Emperour against him which Decree is in Clementina de sententia re iudicata cap. Pastoralis Another is in Clementina prima de Iureiurando that the Emperour is bound to sweare allegiance to the Pope and concerning some authoritie of the Pope ouer the Emperour Which Decretalls whether they be iust or no God he knoweth For I without preiudice to sounder aduice do beleeue and if it should be erroneous I recall it that none of them be agreeable to right Yea I beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire and I doe thinke that by God they were instituted distinct powers whereof I haue noted sufficiently lege prima Cod. de Summa Trinitate Fide Catholica Thus Albericus 3 Obserue now good Reader how sleightly D. Sculckenius would shift of this authoritie which is so plaine and manifest Albericus saith he speaketh wauering and altogether doubtfull and he addeth and if it should be erroneous I recall it and he is conuinced of errour by Azor lib. 10. cap. 6. q. 3. These be all the exceptions that D. Schulckenius taketh against this authority But first this word doubtfull or wauering as out of Vasquez I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation d Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 18. 19. 20. 81. may be taken two manner of waies either when one is so doubtfull that he hath no determinate assent of either part but remaineth perplex betwixt both iudging neither part to be either true or false in which sense that word altogether doubtfull which D. Schulkenius vseth here if he will not speake improperly can only be taken and when we are thus doubtfull concerning any matter we are alwaies bound to chuse the surer part neither is it lawfull to do any thing with a doubtfull conscience taking doubtfull in this sense Or else the word doubtfull may be taken when wee haue a determinate assent or iudgement that one part is true or false but yet we are not certaine and therefore haue some feare of the contrarie which feare doth not exclude a determinate assent and iudgement that one part is true for euery assent iudgement or opinion which is only probable doth alwaies imply a feare but feare consisteth in this that he who is fearefull or iudgeth with feare hath two assents or iudgements the one direct whereby he iudgeth determinately that one part is true the other reflexe whereby he iudgeth that although he thinketh it true yet in very deede it may be false for that it is not certaine but Disputable and in controuersie among Doctours and therefore only probable and when we are thus doubtfull or fearefull concerning any matter we are not bound to chuse the surer part but it is sufficient to chuse that which is probable neither is it vnlawfull to doe any thing with such a doubtfull or fearefull conscience as in that place I declared out of Vasquez 4. Now if D. Schulckenius by those wordes wauering and altogether doubtfull vnderstand as of necessitie he must if he will speake properly that Albericus had no determinate assent iudgement or opinion concerning the vniustice of those Decretalls this is manifestly false and those words I doe beleeue that they are not agreeable to right and I doe beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire c. doe clearely conuince D. Schulkenius of apparant vntruth But if D. Schulckenius by those words wauering and altogether doubtfull doe onely meane that Albericus was indeed of opinion that those Decretalls were vniust yet he did not hold his opinion for certaine and without all controuersie and therefore was not obstinate in his owne opinion but was readie to recall it if it should proue to be erroneous and that hee would not condemne other men that should thinke the contrarie as now adaies it is too frequent to condemne other men this is very true for so much only doe import those his wordes and I do beleeue vnder correction or without preiudice to sounder aduise and if it should be erroneous I recall it this neuerthelesse doth not hinder but that we haue the opinion of a man excellently learned and of a Classicall Doctour that the sentence of deposition denounced against Frederike the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and three other famous Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law touching the Popes power to dispose of temporalls were vniust and made against the rights and libertie of the Empire 5. Secondly but Albericus is conuinced saith D. Schulckenius of error by Azor. But besides that this letteth not but that Albericus is of opinion that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes this also is euen as true as that which D. Schulckenius said before concerning the errours which he said Posseuine had obserued in Trithemius his historie For besides that all the arguments which Azor bringeth to proue in generall the Popes authoritie ouer the Emperour in temporalls are but triuiall and haue been alreadie answered partly by D. Barclay partly by my selfe and now of late very exactly by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made one only argument in particular Azor vrgeth against Albericus which is this that the Romane Emperour was instituted by the authoritie of the Church by whose grant also the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the Germanes or Frenchmen and that he is created as a Patron defendour Protector and Tutour of the Church from whence he inferreth that the Pope did not put his sickle into another mans haruest but did vse his owne right when hee made that Canon concerning the election of the Emperour and when he exacteth an oath of the Emperour 6. But that this is no conuincing proofe I shewed clearely in my Apologie c Num 404. seq For the Romane Empire was not instituted by the authoritie of the Romane Church seeing that he was instituted before there was any Romane Church at all and continued for a long time together the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls of the Romane Church Neither was the Romane Empire translated from the Grecians to the Germans or French men by the grant of the Romane Church if by the Romane Church be meant onely the Cleargie of Rome but it was translated by the grant suffrages and authoritie also of the Laitie who in the west parts were subiect to the Romane Empire True also it is that all Catholike Princes ought to be Patrons defenders and protectours of the Romane Church but the Romane Emperour more specially they being children and members of the Catholike Romane Church and euery member is bound to defend eath other but especially to defend the head
authoritie And therefore notwithstanding all the exceptions which Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius do take against Ioannes Parisiensis we haue the testimonie of this learned Catholike and famous Schole-Diuine that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes by his sentence which is the only question at this time betweene me and Card. Bellarmine Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. Doctour Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is breifly examined 1. THe fourth testimony which I broght both in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 28. and also in my Apologieb was of Mr. Doctour Barclay a most learned man and yet no more learned then religious howsoeuer some falsly and vnchristianly do slaunder him in his booke de Regno printed at Paris in the yeare 1600. with priueledge of the most Christian King of France where he affirmeth that Kings who doe omit or are negligent to keepe Gods commandements to worship him religiously and to vse all care and diligence that their subiects do not reuolt from true Religion and fall into Idolatrie Iudaisme or heresie are to be iudged by God alone because only to God they are subiect speaking of temporall iudgement and subiection although the Pope being the supreme Prince and vniuersall Pastour of the Chuch hath power to condemn with spirituall iudgement all kings and Princes offending against Gods law as they are Christians and children of the Church and to deliuer them to inuisible tormentours to be punished with the rod of the inuisible spirit and with the two edged sword of Excommunication 2. But Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay c Per totum little regardeth his authority and now in his Sculckenius he affirmeth d Pag. 110. ad num 28. that Catholikes will make no more account of Barclay then they do of Marsilius de Padua and of my selfe an easie answer to shift off the authoritie of any learned Catholike And againe who doth not maruaile saith D. Schulckenius that seeing Card. Bellarmine hath in this point clearely and soundly after his accustomed manner confuted Barclay Widdrington durst not only aduenture to write against him without sufficient ground but also to oppose the said Barclay as a testimonie of truth against Card. Bellarmine 3. But notwithstanding this glorious brag of D. Schulckenius so highly commending himselfe and his cleare and sound confuting of Barclay after his accustomed manner it cannot be denied but that Doctour Barclay was a very learned man and liued and died like a vertuous Catholike and 〈◊〉 hee was in times past as Posseuine also relateth e In verbo Gulielmus Barclaius a Counseller to the Duke of Lorraine and Master of Requests and in the vniuersity of Mussepont a Professour of the Canon and Ciuill Law and also Deane and that his booke was printed at Paris with a speciall priueledge of the most Christian King of France and is by Posseuine related among other approued bookes and no exception taken by him against it And therefore who doth not maruell that D. Schulckenius durst aduenture so bouldly to affirme f Part. 1. cap. 2. num 2. that Catholikes will make no more account of D. Barclay a famous and learned Catholike then of Marsilius of Padua a known and condemned heretike although not for this point touching the Popes power to depose Princes but for other his assertions which I related in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez Wherefore although perchance some Catholikes doe with Card. Bellarmine make small account of Doctour Barclaies authoritie as also they would make of the authoritie of any other Catholike were he neuer so vertuous or learned that should write against them in this point neuerthelesse other Catholikes doe greatly regard his authoritie for the aforesaid cause and they are also perswaded that they haue as probable reasons to thinke that he did not write partially in fauour of Princes or any other person as that Card. Bellarmine did not write partially in fauour of the Pope and some other of his followers in fauour of him and their Order 4 Neither hath D. Schulckenius in very truth any great cause so greatly to vaunt of his cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay for that both his sonne Mr. Iohn Barclay a learned Catholike hath most clearely shewed the said confutation to be very vnsound to whom as yet no Reply hath been made and yet his booke was printed at Paris by the Kings Printer three yeeres since and also the Bishop of Rochester a learned Protestant hath out of Catholike grounds conuinced D. Schulckenius his brag of the cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay to be but vaine wherefore let Card Bellarmine first make a cleare and sound Reply to the aforesaid Answers and then he may haue some cause to boast that he hath clearely and soundly confuted D. Barclay In the meane time it can not be denyed but that notwithstanding all the clamours of our Aduersaries this doctrine which doth now so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes is and hath euer been impugned by vertuous and learned Catholikes Chap. 5. Wherein the authorities of Mr George Blackwell and of many other English Priests are at large debated 1. THe first testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 9. to which D. Schulckenius doth not answer was of Mr. George Blackwell a vertuous and learned Catholike Priest and once the Archipraesbyter of the English Seminarie Priests who maintayned euen vntill death for not halfe a quarter of an howre before hee dyed he confirmed the same the oath to be lawfull and that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes to which also besides Mr. William Warmington in his moderate defence of the Oath Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Card Bellarmine in defence of his Father printed at Paris by the Kings Printer and Mr. William Barres in his booke de Iure Regio and many other learned Catholikes of this Kingdome both Priests and Lay-men whose names for iust causes I forbare to set downe for that they had not shewed themselues by publike writings I added the testimonie of those thirteene Reuerend and learned English Priests with whom twice thirtie others would haue ioyned if their protestation had not been made so suddenly who to giue assurance of their loyaltie to the late Queene Elizabeth did by a publike instrument written in parchment professe and made it knowne to all the Christian world that Shee being at that time excommunicated by name and depriued by the sentence of Pope Pius the fifth of hir Regall power and authoritie had neuertheles as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer them and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessours euer had And that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced by the Pope against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions which would not forsake the defence of
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
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
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
temporall power it selfe speaking properly and formally is not subiect to the spirituall nor dooth compound the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ And therefore I haue not onely weakened but also quite ouerthrowne and that out of his owne grounds this conclusion of Card. Bellarmine and all those three arguments which he brought to confirme the same as any iudicious Reader who will duly examine both our writings will easily perceiue Chap. 8. Wherein is examined the fourth argument taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man 1. THE fourth argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue this subiection of of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall power of the Church is taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene who compareth the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man yea and also affirmeth that temporall Magistrates are subiect to spirituall Pastors And this similitude doth so greatly please Card. Bellarmines conceit that when hee hath any fit occasion he spareth not to inculcate it as a very strong argument and fit similitude to proue that the temporall power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as the body in man is per se subiect to the soule For as the spirit and flesh saith he a Lib. 5. de RoÌ„ pont cap. 6. are in man so are the spirituall and temporall power in the Church For the spirit and flesh are as it were two common-wealths which may be found separated and also vnited The flesh hath sense and appetite to which are answerable their acts and proper obiects and of all which the immediate end is the health good constitution of the body The spirit hath vnderstanding and wil and acts and proportionate obiects and for her end the health and perfection of the soule The flesh is found without the spirit in beasts the spirit is found without the flesh in Angels 2 Whereby it is manifest that neither of them is precisely for the other The flâ—sh also is found vnited to the spirit in man where because they make one person they haue necessarily subordination and connexion For the flesh is subiect the spirit is superiour and although the spirit doth not intermeddle hir selfe with the actions of the flesh but doth suffer the flesh to exercise all hir actions as shee doth exercise in beasts yet when they doe hurt the end of the spirit the spirit doth command the flesh and doth punish hir and if it be needfull doth appoint fastings and also other afflictions euen with some detriment and weakning of the bodie and doth compell the tongue not to speake the eyes not to see c. In like manner if any action of the flesh yea and death it selfe be necessarie to obtaine the end of the spirit the spirit hath power to command the flesh to expose hir selfe and all hirs as wee see in Martyrs 3 Euen so the ciuill power hath hir Princes lawes iudgements c. and likewise the Ecclesiasticall hath hir Bishops Canons iudgements The ciuill hath for hir end temporall peace the spirituall euerlasting saluation They are sometimes found separated as long since in the time of the Apostles sometimes vnited as now And when they are vnited they make one bodie and therefore they ought to be connected and the inferiour subiect and subordained to the superiour Therefore the spirituall power doth not intermeddle hir selfe with temporall affaires but doth suffer all things to proceed as before they were vnited so that they be not hurtfull to the spirituall end or not necessarie to the attayning therevnto But if any such thing doe happen the spirituall power may and ought to compell the temporall by all manner and waies which shall seeme necessarie therevnto 4 Thus you see that Card Bellarmine hath made here a plausible discourse but truly more beseeming as I will most clearely convince a cunning oratour who with fine and wittie conceipts seeketh rather to please curious eares then a sound Diuine who with substantial arguments and forcible proofes should endeauour to convince the vnderstanding of iudicious men especially in such points as are pretended to belong to Catholike faith and eternall saluation For neither is the temporall and spirituall power among Christians well compared to the body and soule of man either in vnion or in subiection and besides although it were in all things a fit similitude yet it doth not any way proue that which Card. Bellarmine pretendeth to proue thereby but it doth clearely and directly as you shall see convince the flat contrarie 5 For first as I shewed before b Cap. 2. 3. out of Card Bellarmines owne grounds the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to their visible heads here on earth doe not make properly and formally one totall bodie or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ but they doe make properly and formally two totall bodies or common wealths to wit earthly kingdomes or a temporall and ciuill bodie whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius expressely affirmeth c Pag. 339. and the spirituall kingdome mysticall bodie or Church of CHRIST whereof the Pope is head and which as D. Schulckenius also affirmeth d Pag. 203. is onely compounded of spirituall power Seeing therefore that the reason why Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that temporall power among Christians is subiect to the spirituall is for that they do make one totall bodie or common-wealth as the bodie and soule doe make one man and consequently the temporall power must be subiect to the spirituall as the bodie is subiect to the soule of man and as I haue clearely proued there is no such vnion of the temporall and spirituall power to make one totall bodie consisting of both powers which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of CHRIST it is manifest that Card Bellarmines argument drawne from this similitude of the soule and bodie being grounded vpon this vnion of the temporall and spirituall power compounding one totall bodie hath no sure ground or foundation at all 6 Secondly although I doe willingly grant as you haue seene before e Cap. 1. that not onely the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred not to their visible heads here on earth but to CHRIST the invisible head of them both doe make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting actually of both powers which may bee called the Christian world in which sense the Christian common wealth is vsually taken but the Church of CHRIST and especially the spirituall kingdome of CHRIST is seldome taken in that sense but also the whole world consisting of Christians and Infidells may in that manner be called one totall bodie whereof CHRIST at least wise as he is GOD is the invisible and celestiall head neuerthelesse this similitude of the soule and bodie vnited in one man
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
or deny in this oath wee must not I say so much regard his opinion as his intention and what is the true sense and meaning of the oath according to the plain and common vnderstanding of the words to which his Maiesty doth bind the taker and what by vertue of the words we must acknowledge professe detest and abiure in this oath Now it is euident as I haue shewed before that my opinion is not different from the substance of the oath nor from that which his Maiesty intendeth to bind the swearer to acknowledge or abiure in this oath 136. For I affirme two things which are the whole substance of the oath The first is that any Catholike may lawfully and with a safe conscience declare testifie and acknowledge before God and in his conscience that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiesty nor to dispose of any his kingâ—omes or Dominions and so of the other clauses which doe follow from this doctrine And my reason is for that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes I will not say at this present is a false doctrine and repugnant to the holy Scriptures and to the ancient Fathers but it is not certaine and a point of faith as Maister Fitzherbert and some others of his companie will needs haue it to be and the contrary is probable and consequently may with a safe and probable conscience be acknowledged and maintained by any Catholike But whether it be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no I doe not at this present dispute neither doe I either grant it or deny it or meddle at all therewith as being vnnecessary to proue the oath to be lawfull That which I affirme at this time is that it is probable that the Pope hath no such power Let vs first agree about this point that it is probable that the Pope hath no such power and then we will dispute how probable it is that he hath such a power In the meane time all Mr. Fitzherberts cunning turning and winding shall not draw mee to so great a disaduantage as to take vpon mee to proue that to be certaine which he and the rest of my Aduersaries will not grant to be so much as probable 137. The second thing which touching practise I doe affirme is that this doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other to omit now the word murthered is an impious and damnable doctrine and in what sense it may be called hereticall as also whether by vertue of the words both parts of that disiunctiue position contained in the oath are abiured alike and whether there be the same reason that the deposing and murthering of Princes should be abiured alike I haue sufficiently declared before Whereby it may also appeare that my doctrine bringeth no danger at all to his Maiestie as that of my Aduersaries doth but giueth great security both to his Maiesties person and State as also I haue noted before in the Preface y nu 61. seq which the Reader would quickly haue perceaued if Mr. Fitzherbert had not guilfully to disgrace mee with his Maiestie concealed the chiefest part of my answeare and doctrine touching the security which it gaue to his Maiestie for which cause hee hath laboured so much to haue my bookes forbidden that the Reader may not see my answeares and doctrine but after that mangled and lame manner as hee is pleased to curtoll and disfigure them 138. Thirdly it is euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert z nu 31. that neither Widdrington nor any man that followeth his doctrine can lawfully sweare this clause of the oath whereof wee treat for no man can with safe conscience abiure as impious and hereticall any opinion which hee houldeth to be probable as Widdrington granteth our opinion to be 139. But on the contrary part I say that it is euident that any man who followeth my doctrine may lawfully sweare this clause of the oath whereof wee treat for any man may with safe conscience abiure as impious and hereticall that doctrine and position which is truely as impious and hereticall Neither doe I grant that the doctrine and position contained in this clause of the oath which as you see belongeth to practise is probable as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth but I acknowledge that it is a false damnable impious and hereticall doctrine and that therefore it ought by all Catholikes to be abhorred detested and abiured so from their hearts as I haue cleerely proued before and as for the speculatiue doctrine of deposing Princes I neither grant nor deny it to be probable nor medle at all therewith as being impertinent as I haue often said to proue that the oath may lawfully be taken 140 Lastly I conclude saith M. Fitzherbert a nu 32. that albeit there were no other thing in the oath to make it vnlawfull yet this onely clause might suffice to doe it yea and ought to moue all Catholikes to refuse it For surely he must be a Catholike of a strange conscience that can perswade himselfe to detest abiure and abhorre from his heart a doctrine that is taught by the best Catholike wriâ—ers ancient and moderne and confirmed by the practise of the Catholike Church and the authority of diuers Generall and Prouinciall Councells as experience hath shewed for many hundreds of yeares So as thou seest good Reader what Widdrington gaineth by his wrangling seeing that the further he goeth the further he intangleth himselfe still in an inextricable labyrinth of absurdities whiles he seeketh to intangle the consciences of Catholikes in the snares of his pretended probabilities And this shall suffice for this point 141. But contrariwise I conclude that this clause is not sufficient to make the oath vnlawfull or to moue any Catholike to refuse the same For surely he must be a Catholike of a strange conscience and caried away with the like fanaticall zeale and bloody maximes that the Powder-Traitors were that can perswade himselfe that the murthering of Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope and the doctrine thereof which is a part of that conditionall disiunctiue proposition abiured in this clause of the oath ought not to be detested abhorred and abiured from his heart Neither was this doctrine euer taught before in the Church of God by any Catholike writer ancient or moderne or confirmed by the practise of the Catholike Church or authority of any Generall or Prouinciall Councell 142. And although the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes by way of sentence hath bene taught by many Catholike writers and also practised by diuers Popes onely since the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrary to the custome of his ancestors durst I doe not say excommunicate but also depriue Caesar himselfe by whom if he was not chosen he was at least confirmed of
a controuersie among Catholike Doctors to alledge for confirmation of both opinions the aforesaid authorities and proofes which neuerthelesse doth not discourage either part from maintayning their opinions as it is manifest in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope and Generall Councells the conception of our B. Lady in originall sinne and many questions concerning the Popes authoritie to dispence and now of late in the question touching grace and freewill betwixt the Dominicans and the Iesuites 20 Therefore it is rather great temeritie and extreme folly that you my Catholike Countrymen should venter your soules and whole estates vpon this my Aduersaries writings whose knowledge in Diuinitie is knowne to be but small and his desire to ease your griefes as you shall perceiue beneath d Num 81. 82. is also no whit lesse besides he handleth this controuersie which doth so greatly concerne your spirituall and temporall good or harme and your obedience due to GOD and CAESAR so vnsincerely and corruptly that either he concealeth my answers or peruerteth the true meaning of my words rather thereby to disgrace me with the Reader and to make him to haue a preiudicate conceipt of what I wrote then really and sincerely to finde out the truth and by a cleere and moderate debating of the controuersie to satisfie his Readers vnderstanding And this very argument taken chiefly from the Popes Breues which this man to terrifie and perplexe the timorous conscience of the deuout Catholike Reader vrgeth here I haue so largely answered in my Theologicall Disputation e Cap. 10 sec 2. wherein I fully satisfied this obiection taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of so many learned men who condemne the oath as contayning in it many things cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation that I thought he would haue blushed to repeat the same argument here againe so nakedly which I my selfe vrged there more plainly and strongly without making any Reply or taking any notice of the answers I made in that place thervnto For there I shewed the difference according to Vasquez doctrine between a doubtfull and disputable question and that there is neither doubt nor danger of any imprudence temeritie disobedience or of any other sinne not to obey the Popes declaratiue command when it is grounded vpon an opinion or doctrine which is not certaine but disputable for that diuers Popes haue in their Breues or Decretall letters declared and taught false and also hereticall doctrine and that the Popes declaratiue command hath no greater force to binde then hath the doctrine or opinion whereon it is grounded as Suarez whom I related in that place doth expresly affirme And thus much concerning my Aduersaries first Admonition 21 Secondly whereas Widdrington saith my Aduersarie Å¿ Num. 12. professeth not to giue for his opinion any assured and certaine proofes which may breed in the hearers or Readers a firme and doubtlesse assent but onely probable reason drawne from credible principles which may induce a probable perswasion hee sheweth euidently that his meaning is not to seeke out the truth but rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling to shew his wit labouring to maintaine paradoxes with some shew of probabilitie knowing right well that as Cicero saith there is nothing so incredible but it may bee made probable by discourse c. And what else may this man be thought to intend but to shew his wit seeing that hee pretendeth to produce no other proofe of his opinion but onely probabilitie and withall acknowledgeth that the contrarie doctrine is and hath been professed and held by almost all the learned Catholikes that euer haue written at least whose workes are now extant Is it likely then that hee meaneth to establish the truth or to quiet mens consciences by the discussion thereof No truely But rather that he seeketh as I haue said to obscure it and make it doubtfull when he can not ouerthrow it which is the most diuellish deuise that any man could inuent to impugne any point of the Catholike faith to wit not to doe it all at once but by degrees seeking to shake the foundation of it first calling it in question and then teaching it to bee but probable and consequently doubtfull to the end that the mindes of men hanging in suspence may be disposed to admit as well the errour as the truth 22 But whether I or my Aduersarie doth intend to establish the truth or rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling seeing that hee still persisteth in misinterpreting the meaning of my words and in dissembling the true state of the question concerning the modall proposition which is the maine controuersie betwixt him and me wherein although hee sheweth in deede in some part his wit yet verily he sheweth no sincere and vpright dealing I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader For first it is vntrue that I professe as my Aduersarie affirmeth to giue for my opinion no assured and certaine proofes which may breed a firme and vndoubted assent which the Reader would quickly haue perceiued if my Aduersarie had been pleased to haue entirely related my words which are these wherefore the present controuersie betweene me and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning this absolute question or proposition whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose Princes for heresie or no but concerning the modall proposition whether it bee so certaine that the Pope by Christ his institution hath such a power to depose Princes as that those who defend the contrarie opinion doe expose themselues to manifest danger of heresie errour or of any other mortall sinne Wherefore although in my Apologie I brought certaine arguments drawne from inconueniences which the Logicians call ad impossibile to proue that Christ our Lord did not grant such an authoritie to the Pope which is the son then can my Aduersarie haue to taxe me for not bringing any assured or certaine proofes but onely probable to proue that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes 26 Wherefore to establish and confirme this doctrine that it is not a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes or that it is not improbable that he hath no such power it is sufficient to answere probably all the reasons and authorities to the contrarie and to bring probable proofes which may cause a probable perswasion that he hath no such authoritie considering that according to the approued ground of all Philosophers and Diuines certaintie of one part of the contradiction cannot stand with probabilitie of the other taking probable in that sense as the Diuines doe take it and not for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie and is not truely probable for if it bee certainely true that the Pope hath power to depose it is certainely false and therefore not probable that hee hath not power to depose And therefore my Aduersarie rather seeketh to obscure the truth and to
r Lib. 5. de Rō Pont. cap. 1. yet this rather confirmeth mee in my opinion For if his doctrine which denieth that the Pope as Pope hath power to depriue iuridically and by way of sentence temporall Princes of their dominions and to vse the temporall sword had beene thought in those daies to haue beene hereticall or erronious as now Card. Bellarmine and some few other Iesuites will needes haue it to be it is like that he should also haue beene compelled to recall that doctrine and that those learned Authors who write of heresies as Alphonsus de Castro Prateolus Genebrard D. Sanders and others would for the same haue taxed him and Marsilius of Padua as also Albericus and those many Schoolemen and Doctours related by Trithemius and Almaine who did defend the same doctrine with some note of heresie or errour which seeing they haue not done it is a manifest signe that they did not account that doctrine for hereticall or erronious that the decree of the Councel of Lateran which was long before any of these mens daies and which was also so publike and registred in the corps of the Canon Law was not in those times vnderstood in that sense as Card. Bellarmine now of late for before in his controuersies he made small reckoning of that authority for that he cleane omitteth that decree yet bringing many particular facts of Popes yea of Pope Innocēt the third in whose time and by whose authoritie that Councell was held and some few others without sufficient proofe as I will shew beneath ſ Part. 3. ca. 9. seq will needes haue that decree to be vnderstood 36. Neither is that true which D. Schulckenius affirmeth that Ioannes Parisiensis in acknowledging That when the Pope doth becken the Emperour ought to exercise the iurisdiction of the secular power for the spirituall good But if hee will not or if it doth not seeme to him expedient the Pope hath no other thing to do because he hath not the materiall sword in command but onely the Emperour according to S. Bernard dooth either speake of the direct power of the Pope to vse them materiall sword or else contradict himselfe when afterwards hee writeth that the Pope may per accidens depose the Emperour by causing the people to depose him For Ioannes Parisiensis in that his Treatise de potestate Regia Papali doth expresly impugne both the direct and indirect coerciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence and iuridically with temporall punishments affirming as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth that Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment is the last which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict For although it belongeth to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to bring men backe to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not this but according to the way or meanes giuen him by God which is by excluding from the Sacraments and the participation of the faithfull 37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore contradict himselfe in affirming that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people For although he be of opinion as I shewed before t Part. 1. ca. 2. that the people haue in some cases a coerciue power ouer their Prince and in some cases may depose him and consequently the Pope may in those cases if it be necessarie to the good of the Church command the people and with spirituall punishments compell them to vse their coerciue power and so the Pope may be said to depose a Prince per accidens by meanes of the people with which philosophicall question I will not at this time as I often said intermeddle yet concerning the Popes coerciue power to vse him selfe the temporall sword or to depose the Emperour by way of iuridicall sentence which is not repugnant to his authoritie to depose by meanes of the people if the people haue any such authoritie to depose which many learned Diuines to whose opinion the ancient Fathers seeme to assent as I haue signified heretofore doe denie u in my Apologie nu 411. and here part 1. cap. 3. nu 5. Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellarmines opinion and expressely affirmeth that the Pope hath no power to depriue iuridically or by way of sentence temporall Princes of their kingdomes but only to inflict by way of coercion or constraint Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authoritie and also the Reply which D. Schulckenius hath made therevnto 38 Now to the authoritie of Pope Boniface the 8. I answer first that his words are to be vnderstood in that sense as I expounded S. Bernard whom hee as Card Bellarmine affirmeth did imitate to wit that the temporall power is in order to spirituall good or which is all one in spirituall things subiect to the command of the spirituall power and that shee is to be instructed by the spirituall not absolutely in temporall gouernment but in Christian faith and religion and that if shee goe out of the way or erre in things belonging to Christian faith and religion shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual but with spirituall not temporall punishments And in this sense it is very true that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but by this it is onely signified that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in meere temporals subiect to the spirituall command and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours 39 Secondly although Pope Boniface should vnderstand those words in this sense that temporall Princes are not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls subiect to the Popes power both to command and also to punish temporally yet his authoritie herein as he is Pope for as he is a priuate Doctor it is no greater then of other Doctors is not of any great weight considering first that as well obserueth D. Duvall x De suprema Rom. Pont. potest part 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263 a learned Schoole-Diuine one of the Kings Readers in the Colledge of Sorbon although Pope Boniface doth make mention both of the spirituall and temporall sword and in the progresse of his Constition doth say that the temporall sword is vnder the spirituall yet in the definition or conclusion which chiefely as in the decrees of Councells is to be regarded seeing that this onely bindeth to beleeue this onely hee pronounceth in generall but we declare say define and pronounce that it is necessarie to the saluation of euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome But in what manner all men must be subiect it is not expressed in this definition and therefore not to contradict this definition it is sufficient to affirme that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to command and to punish s piritually 40 Secondly for that this Extrauagant was recalled by his Successour Pope Clement the fift in
was Catholike and if it had not beene Catholike the Church defining it to bee Catholike should haue erred therefore it was Catholike and reuealed by God before the Church defined it Wherefore the Church cannot make a new Article of faith but that which before was true faith but not certainely knowne to vs the Church by her definition maketh it knowne to vs. 108 In like maner wee haue this from the Church to know certainly which is diuine Scripture and we are bound to account that to be diuine Scripture which the Church hath defined to be diuine And although shee doth certainely define and cannot erre yet shee doth not make by her definition that Scripture to bee diuine for therefore shee hath declared it to be diuine because it was truely diuine and if it had not beene before diuine Scripture the Church would not haue declared it to be diuine Wherefore although that assertion which is condemned by the Catholike Church to be contrary to Catholike faith and to bâ—e accounted heresie was also heresie before the definition of the Church yet before the Church did define it the maintainers of that opinion were not called heretickes because it was not knowne whether that opinion was contrary to Catholike faith but now after the definition of the Church they shall bee called hereticks whosoeuer shall approue and maintaine that opinion not for that their opinion was not before false contrary to Catholike faith and heresie but because this name of heretickes beeing infamous and appertaining to that most heinous crime doth require a certaine pertinacy and rebellion departing from the definitions of the Catholike Church which could not truely be accounted at that time when it was doubtfull and disputable and the Church had not defined whether that opinion was repugnant to Religion and faith 109. In this sense therefore it may be said that the Church hath power to declare an assertion to be Catholike and to appertaine to Catholike faith to this effect that after the definition of the Church the said assertion is so manifestly of faith that he is to be accounted an obstinate hereticke who defending the contrary shall depart from that definition although before the definition of the Church the said assertion albeit was most true and Catholike yet by reason of the doubt and controuersie touching that point hee could not iustly be called an heretick who should allow and follow the contrary position And what hath bene said if there be any doubt or controuersie touching any text of holy Scripture and the true sense thereof is proportionally to be vnderstood if there be any doubt or controruersie touching any definition of the Church and the true sense thereof as wee see there is now a controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris touching the definition of the Councell of Constance concerning the Superiority of the Church or a Generall Councell aboue the Pope and among many other Catholikes touching the decrees and declarations of diuerse other Generall Councells and now lately touching the sense of those words of the Councell of Lateran Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord c. Which some Catholikes of late haue greatly vrged to proue the Popes power to depose Princes whereof beneath b Part. 3. cap. 9. seq we will discourse at large 110. From this doctrine which neither Mr. Fitzherbert nor any other can proue to be improbable it cleerely followeth that heresie being a falshood repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probability wherewith one is perswaded that such a doctrine or position is false and repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probabilitie hee may abhorre detest and abiure that doctrine for hereticall And consequently it followeth that if it be lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure for impious damnable and false doctrine repugnant to truth contained in the word of God this Doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other which position for that it concerneth practise and not onely speculation is in very deed false impious damnable and repugnant to truth contained in holy Scriptures and ought so to be accounted not onely by those who are of opinion that the Pope hath not power to depriue Princes but also so long as this question remaineth vndecided and in controuersie by those who doe speculatiuely thinke that hee hath authority to depriue them it is lawfull also to abiure it for hereticall And this I hope may suffice for the defence of my first and principall answeare and for the confutation of M. Fitzherberts Reply therevnto 111. The Second answere which I haue heard many Catholikes giue to the aforesaid obiection of the Authour of that English Dialogue against the word hereticall contained in this clause of the oath and which Answeare Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to ouerthrow I related c Cap. 5. Sec. 2. nu 28. 29 in these words The second principall answeare which some of our Countrimen doe make to the aforesaid obiection is gathered from the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine who expounding d Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. that sentence of Pope Gregory the first e Lib. 1. epist 24. I confesse that I doe receiue the foure first Councells as the foure bookes of the Gospell affirmeth that the aduerbe as doth import a similitude and not an equality as that of Matth. 5. Be you perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect For in like manner these Catholiks doe answeare that those words I doe abhorre detest and abiure as heretical c. doe not import an equality but a similitude and that in common speech they doe onely signifie that I doe exceedingly detest that doctrine And so wee vsually say I hate him as the diuel I loue him as my brother not intending thereby to affirme that the one is in truth a Diuel or the other my brother 112 Now to omit the word murthered as though there were no mention at all made in the oath concerning the murthering of Princes and to speake onely of deposing them these men affirme that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other supposing that this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is not yet decided is in their iudgments a false and seditious proposition and that it hath some similitude with heresie not for that they thinke it to be in very deed hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense as some Catholikes doe take it but for that they doe constantly hold it to be of such a nature that it may be condemned by the Church for an hereticall proposition and then the maintainers thereof to be pâ—operly heretikes if deposing be taken in that sense as it is in this branch of the oath distinguished from depriuing For to