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
heard of before for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie not to say an heresie and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor a Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. concerning this point betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it saith Trithemius and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie saith Almainus and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine saith Pithaeus and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris to omit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen doth most clearely confirme the same it is neither reason nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme for impugning that new doctrine and practise which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God And therefore many complained saith Azâ—â— in the same place that Gregorie the seuenth did depriâ—e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire 24 For although the Bishops of Rome saith Onuphrius a man as Posseuine confesseth of exceeding great reading and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories were before honoured as the heads of Christian Religion and the Vicars of Christ and the Successours of Peter yet their authoritie was not extended any farther then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith But yet they were subiect to the Emperours all things were done at the Emperours backe they were created by them and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge or decree any thing concerning them Gregorie the seuenth the first of all the Bishops of Rome being aided with the forces of the Nortmans trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis a woman most potent in Italie and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes who were at ciuill warre among them selues contrarie to the custome of his ancestours contemning the authoritie and power of the Emperour when hee had gotten the Popedome did presume I doe not say to excommunicate but also to depriue the Emperour by whom if he was not chosen he was at the least confirmed of his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before that age For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius Anastasius Leo Iconomachus I do nothing regard Thus Onuphrius b Lib 4. de varia creat Rom Pont. 25 Lastly it is also true that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie and Pope Paschalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church or the Catholike Romane Church as D. Schulckenius affirmeth vnlesse by the Catholike Church or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls and Diuines of Rome who are appointed by the Pope for the examining permitting and forbidding of bookes which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church is altogether vntrue Neither is it knowne for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card Bellarmine haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls and especially of Card Bellarmine who hath been pleased to be a Iudge witnesse and accuser in his owne cause been prohibited and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith but the cause wherefore they are forbidden is not therein expressed neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand of what crime either in particular or in generall I am to purge my selfe although in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoe c The 24. of Iune 1614. I haue most humbly and instantly desired it and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue that they haue no small distrust in their cause and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith as Card Bellarmine and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue 26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes wherefore bookes may be forbidden and which in generall are reduced to these two heads either that they are repugnant to faith or else to good manners which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight do in so large yet doubtfull a manner extend that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie but some Correctour or other may easily except against it as those bookes are to be corrected which are against Ecclesiasticall libertie immunitie and Iurisdiction so that if a Canonist be the Corrector he will haue that blotted ouâ— which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes c. vnlesse it can be proued that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine Neither can Card Baronius nor Card Bellarmine be excused from greeuous detraction in charging Sigebert who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned vertuous and religious Catholike with that execrable crime of schisme for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account vnlesse they can proue that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church or disobey the Popes command as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church and the Successour of S. Peter 27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope and whether those who adhere to a false Pope perswading themselues for probable reasons that hee is the true and lawfull Pope are to be condemned of Schisme and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof This only at this present I will demand that if to reiect the testimonie of Sigebert or any such like Authour it be sufficient without any other proofe to say as Mr Fitzherbert answereth that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many others of the contrarie side that they liuing in the time of the Popes who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours for this hath euer been a great controuersie saith Azor betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other wrote partially in their fauour May
A CLEARE SINCERE AND MODEST confutation of the vnsound fraudulent and intemperate Reply of T. F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English IESVITE Wherein ALSO ARE CONFVTED THE chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine hath made against WIDDRINTONS Apologie for the right or Soueraigntie of temporall PRINCES BY Roger Widdrington an English Catholike LVKE 6. Benedicite maledicentibus vobis orate pro calumniantibus vos Blesse them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you IHS Permissu Superiorum 1616. THE CONTENTS of this Treatise The Epistle to English Catholikes Wherein 1. IT is shewed first that it is not safe for the consciences of Catholikes to adhere alwaies to the Pope and neglect the command of their temporall Prince 2 That if the Pope should exact from Catholikes that obedience which is due onely to their temporall Prince they should by obeying the Pope disobey the command of Christ and be truly traitours to their Prince 3 That it is possible for Popes to challenge such an obedience and that de facto Pope Boniface did challenge it of the King and inhabitants of France 4 That it is probable that the Pope that now is in condemning the late Oath of Allegeance and in challenging a power to depose temporall Princes demaundeth of English Catholikes the foresaid temporall Allegiance and vsurpeth that authoritie which Christ hath not giuen him 5 That although it should be granted that it is probable that the Pope hath such an authoritie yet so long as it is but probable it is titulus sine re a title which can neuer be put in execution without manifest disobedience to God and iniustice to temporall Princes 6 That the Pope neither is the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes nor as yet by any authenticall instrument hath defined that he hath power to depose temporall Princes and that therefore it is probable that he hath no such power 7 That the manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning my bookes and commanding me to purge my selfe and the fallacious dealing of my Aduersaries doth clearely shew that they in their consciences are not perswaded that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith 8 The causes of the beginning and increase of this doctrine are briefely insinuated and that if all temporall Princes would vse the like meanes to defend their Soueraigntie this controuersie would be quickly at an end 9 That Catholikes are bound to read and examine this question otherwise their ignorance will be willfull damnable and inexcusable 10 That they may lawfully read my bookes notwithstanding the Popes or rather Card. Bellarmines prohibition to the contrary and that I deserued not at their hands such vncharitable words and deeds for the loue and paines I haue taken for their sakes The Preface to the Reader Wherein M. r Fitzherberts Preface is confuted the matter which Widdrington handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truly probable and to be neither preiudiciall to his Maiesties seruice nor to the consciences of Catholikes and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against that rule of the Law brought by Widdrington In dubijs melior est conditio possidentis In doubts or disputable causes the condition of him who hath possession is to be preferred are confuted The first Part. wherein The authorities and testimonies of those learned Catholikes which Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation brought against the Popes power to depose Princes and which M. r Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer and for answer to them remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer are briefely and perspicuously examined and the Replyes which Doctor Schulckenius maketh against them are confuted Chap. 1. Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius an Abbot and famous writer of the order of S. Benedict is examined and the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against it are ouerthrowne Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer and Classicall Doctor is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are confuted Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctor of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against him are proued to be insufficient Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. r Doctor Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is briefely examined Chap. 5. Wherein are set downe the authorities of many English Catholikes who haue publikely declared their opinions as M. r George Blackwell M. r William Warmington M. r Iohn Barclay M. r William Barret Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor Cole both the Harpesfields Mr Edward Rishton M. r Henry Orton M. r Iames Bosgraue M. r Iohn Hart M. Iames Bishop related by Mr. Camden and those thirteene learned and vertuous Priests and most of them as yet liuing whose names I related in my Theologicall Disputation and whose protestation which I set downe verbatim in my Appendix to Suarez must needes suppose that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes as out of Suarez I conuince in this chapter Chap. 6. Wherein the authority of the Kingdome and State of France is largely debated the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against Petrus Pithaeus and Bochellus are confuted and Sigebert is defended from Schisme of which he is wrongfully taxed by Card. Baronius and D. Schulckenius The second part wherein All the principall arguments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians wheron Mr. Fitzherbert and all the other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes doe chiefely ground that doctrine together with the Replies which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same vnion and subordination are exactly examined Chap. 1. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is declared Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from those words of S. Paul Wee being many are one body in Christ to prooue that the temporall spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head is answered and Card. Bellarmine conuinced of manifest contradiction Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man which is so often vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body as the body and soule doe make one man is declared and cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to make nothing for his purpose Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes concerning this poynt are rehearsed Chap. 5. Wherein the first argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
aforesaid but also in practise are bound to adhere to his Maiestie and to resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that supposing it to be speculatiuely vncertaine whether the Pope hath any such power to depose a King or no it is an vndoubted rule k De regulis Iuris in 6◠among the Lawyers and grounded vpon the light of nature and principles of Diuinitie that in causa dubia siue incerta melior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the state of him that hath possession is the better And againe Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est Reo potiùs quà m Actori when it is vnknowne whether of the parties who are in suite hath right the defendant is to be preferred or fauoured before the plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this controuersie concerning the authoritie of Popes and Soueraigntie of Kings that is from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kings call it temporall or spirituall as you please for sure it is that the effect is temporall hath been vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kings and Subiects and therefore it can not bee said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authoritie although wee should grant that power right or authoritie may be said to bee possessed it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow in speculation concerning the Popes power to depose Princes yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Kings and the right of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not hee can not with a good conscience endeauour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which hee lawfully possesseth 66 Wherevpon in the end of my Apologie I inferred this conclusion whereof also in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I made mention And therefore if either Pope Prince or any other of a forraine countrey should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the kingdome which he possesseth this controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided hee should contrarie to the rules of iustice doe that Prince most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect can not be excused from manifest treason what soeuer opinion in speculation he doth maintaine concerning the Popes temporal power who should in practise vnder pretence perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duely also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne endeauour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced against him by the Pope 67 But because D. Schulkenius hath endeauoured to confute that reason which I out of the aforesaid rule of the Law In causa dubia melior est conditio possidentis I brought to proue that no man in practise can with a safe conscience obey the Popes sentence of depriuation so long as this controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth vndecided I will briefely declare how insufficiently he obiecteth against that reason First therefore he affirmeth l Cap. 15. ad nu 468. pag. 629. pag. 633. ad nu 470. that this doctrine to depose Princes is not doubtfull or in controuersie among Catholikes but it is certaine and of faith and none but heretikes and schismatikes doe defend the contrarie and therefore that rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the possessour is the bettter can not bee applyed to the Popes power to depose Princes But how vntrue this is and also how slanderous and iniurious it is to many learned Catholikes especially to the most Christian Kingdom of France I will cleerely shew beneath in so much that for this cause onely if there had been no other his book was deseruedly burnt publikly at Paris 68 Secondly D. Schulkenius would seeme to affirme that the aforesaid rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the state of him who hath possessions is the better is not a rule of the Law for that saith he I finde not in the rules of the Law In a doubtfull or disputable cause but In a like or equall case the state or condition of him who hath possession is the better But it D. Schulkenius will cauill about the words and not regard the sense I may likewise say that hee findeth not in the rules of the Law In an equall or like case but in an equall and like cause the state of him who hath possession is the better But because cause and case like equall doubtfull vncertaine and disputable haue all one sense for that if two causes or cases be doubtfull vncertaine or disputable they are like or equall in that therefore I regarding the sense and not the words did rather vse the words doubtfull vncertaine and disputable then like or equall both for that the former words doe declare the sense of the rule more plainely and also because Diuines in alledging that rule of the Law do commonly vse the word doubtfull as it may be seene in Dominicus Sotus m Lib. 7. de instit q. 3. ar 2. Ioannes Azor n Tom. 1. lib 2. Instit cap. 18. Ioannes Salas o Dis 1. sec 9. de Legibus and Gabriel Vasquez p Prima secundae disp 65. cap. and therefore Vasquez citing the aforesaid rule taketh like and doubtfull for all one The aforesaid rule saith hee q Disp 66. ca. 7 In dubijs seu in pari causa c. In doubts or in a like cause the state of the possessor is the better c. 69 Wherefore D. Sculckenius perceiuing that this exception of his against the aforesaid rule is only verball will not absolutely deny the rule but answereth thirdly that if there be such a rule of the Law as without doubt in sense there is both in the Canon r De Regulis Iuris in sexto and Ciuill Law and in expresse words the Diuines and Lawiers doe cite it so it doth make for the Pope s ff De regulis Iuris regula 170. In pari causa c. who hath beene for many hundred yeares in possession to iudge and depose Seclar Princes especially in a cause belonging to faith But this answere of D. Sculckenius is very insufficient For first although we should grant that right power or authoritie may bee said to be possessed in that sense as Possession is taken in Law whereas according to the Lawiers as Molina the Iesuite obserueth t De Iustitia tract 2. Disp 12. possession properly is onely of corporall things and right power and such like spirituall things are onely said to bee as it were possessed yet supposing that it is a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable question whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no as the
Pope is said to be in possession of his right to depose Princes so Princes may be said to bee in possession of their right not to be deposed by the Pope and therefore in this cause is like or equall doubtfull or disputable as well for Princes right not to be deposed as for the Popes right to depose them and on the other side Princes are not onely in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope but also in quiet peaceable and lawfull possession of their Kingdomes and temporall Dominions which onely are properly said to be possessed in respect whereof this rule fauoureth onely Princes and not the Pope and therefore in this doubtfull and disputable case of the Popes power to depose Princes the state and condition of Princes who are in lawfull possession not onely of their right not to be deposed by the Pope but also of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they possesse is according to the aforesaid rule to be preferred 70. Moreouer that the Popes right power or authoritie to depose Princes may be said to be possessed if possession properly be of rights it is necessarie that hee exercise that power to depose Kings they knowing thereof and bearing it patiently and without contradiction as may clearely be gathered out of u Tract 2. de Instit disp 14. Molina and x Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub 11. Lessius And the reason is euident for otherwise if any man should challenge a right bee it good or bad and should exercise that pretended right the contrarie part contradicting he may neuerthelesse be said to be in lawfull possession of that right And so if temporall Lords should pretend to haue a spirituall Iurisdiction ouer temporall and spirituall persons and should exercise that pretended spirituall Iurisdiction ouer them they contradicting and excepting against the same they might neuerthelesse be said to be in possession of that spirituall Iurisdiction But Christian Kings from the time of Henry the fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that euer was deposed by the Pope vntill the time of Henry the fourth most Christian King of France who was the last King whom the Pope deposed haue euer resisted and contradicted this authoritie of the Pope to depose them And therefore although Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth challenged this authoritie to depose Kings yet they cannot be said to haue been for one yeare or one day in possession of that authoritie ouer Kings seeing that Kings haue euer gainsaid and contradicted it And although there should perchance haue beene some one or other Christian King who for some priuate or publicke respect hath not resisted the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced against him but rather yeelded thereunto yet this cannot be a sufficient warrant to preiudice his Successours or that the Pope may bee said to be in possession of his pretended authoritie to depose Kings in generall but at the most to depose that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the authoritie which the Pope claimed to depose him 71. Fourthly and lastly D. Schulckenius answereth that the aforesaid rule is to be vnderstood when the controuersie is betwixt two inferiour parties who are in suite and not betwixt the Iudge and the partie accused or if wee will apply it to the Iudge and the partie accused the Iudge is to be preferred before the partie accused but the Pope is Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes and therefore this rule saith he is in fauour of the Pope But how vnsound and insufficient is also this Reply of D. Schulckenius it is very apparant For First although the Pope be Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes in spirituall causes and punishments yet in temporall causes and punishments they haue no Iudge or Superiour besides God the supreme Iudge of all both Kings and Popes and therefore well said our learned Countreiman Alexander of Hales y 3 part q. 40. mem 5. q. 4. expound those words A King is to be punished by God alone with materiall punishment And againe A King hath no man who may iudge his facts to wit to inflict corporall punishment And againe A king doth excell as it is written 1. Pet. 2. it is true in his degree to wit to exercise corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but God alone 72. Yea rather contrariwise the Roman Emperors were in times past Iudges in temporall causes of all the Romane Empire and of euery member thereof both Cleargie and Laitie but the deposition of Kings is a temporall cause and punishment for what crime soeuer whether temporall or spirituall a King be deposed and therefore the controuersie about deposing Kings betwixt the Pope challenging to himselfe that authoritie and Kings who are supreme Iudges in temporalls denying it is not betwixt the Iudge and the party accused but at the least betwixt two equalls in temporall causes whereof the Pope who first challenged this power to make Kings no Kings is the plaintiffe and Kings who defend their ancient right and prerogatiue not to be deposed by the Pope are the defendant and so also that second rule of the Law Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. When 〈◊〉 is not cleare whether of the parties who are in suite haue right the defendant is to be preferred before the plaintiffe fauoureth Kings and not the Pope who only from the time of Gregorie the seuenth claimed this authoritie to make Kings no Kings 73. Secondly I doe not thinke that any Lawyer will affirme that if a Iudge who is onely knowne to haue authoritie in ciuill matters as ciuill is opposed to criminall should challenge a Iurisdiction in criminall causes and condemne a man to death before he shewed that hee had sufficient warrant from the Prince so to doe the partie condemned is bound to obey that Iudge or that the aforesaid rule In a like or doubtfull cause hee that hath possession it to be preferred should fauour the aforesaid Iudge and not the party condemned who is not onely in possession of his life but also hath right to defend his life vntill the Iudge shew sufficient warrant or it is otherwise publikely knowne that he hath authoritie to take it away Neither is it a sufficient warrant for the Iudge that it is knowne that he is a Iudge in ciuill matters vnlesse it be also knowne that he is a Iudge also in criminall causes as likewise it is not a sufficient warrant for the Pope to depriue Kings of their temporall kingdomes that it is cleare that he is a Iudge in all spirituall matters vnlesse also it be cleare as yet it is not that he is also a Iudge in temporall causes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coercion as without doubt are the taking away of temporall kingdomes for what crime soeuer they be taken away 74.
Wherefore that Dialogue which D. Schulckenius maketh betwixt the Pope and a conuicted heretike whose goods are without any controuersie confiscated both by the Ciuill and Canon Law is vnaptly applyed to the deposing of Kings which hath beene and is at this present in controuersie among Catholikes Besides that this Dialogue also supposeth that the Pope is in possession of his authoritie to depose Kings and that Kings are not in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope and that the Pope is a Iudge of temporall Kings in temporall causes and to punish them with temporall punishments by way of coercion and also that the aforesayd rule fauoureth the Iudge and not the person conuented before the Iudge when the authority of the Iudge ouer the person conuented is not sufficiently knowen all which as I haue shewed before are very vntrue And by this thou maiest perceiue good Reader how insufficient are the exceptions which D. Schuclkenius bringeth against my argument grounded in the aforsaid rule of the Law as in very deed are al the rest of his Replies against my Apology as God willing ere long for I cannot answer fully and exactly as I intend all my Aduersaries at once I will most cleerely shew 75. Consider now do are Country-men first the vnsincere dealing of this my Aduersarie T. F. who concealeth the chiefest part of opinion and doctrine for the securing of his Maiesty of the constant loyaltie and allegeance wherein all his Catholike Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby he may cause his Maiestie to bee iealous of my fidelity and to account me no good Subiect as this man slanderously affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or child of the Church as I professe my selfe to be but that I am falne into flat heresie from which I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe for impugning that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is grounded vpon such assured and solid foundation as this man forsooth heere hath signified but how guilfully and vnsoundly you haue partly seene and he will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter where also his particular frauds and falsehoods I will more particularly and manifestly lay open to his owne shame and confusion But for all his slanderous words I trust in God that it wil appear to all men that insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui z Psal 26. mentita est iniquit as sibi that false witnesses haue risen vp against me and that wickednesse hath be lied her selfe and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a good Catholike and a dutifull childe of the Catholike Church as partly I haue prooued heere already and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter In the meane time let Mr. Fitzherbert examine well his Catholike faith and consider what a kinde of Catholike hee is who so stiffely maintaineth vncertaine opinions for the Catholike faith which if it bee truely Catholike cannot be exposed to any falshood or vncertainty as this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which with Catholike faith hee pretendeth truely to beleeue may in very deede bee false and without all doubt is vncertaine and questionable among Catholikes 76. Secondly consider how vntruely Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that my manner of disputing this question probably concerning the Popes power not to depose Princes and the lawfull taking of the Oath doth not onely giue no security to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safety and how vnlearnedly hee argueth from speculation to practise For although I should admit not onely for Disputation sake as onely I doe but also positiuely confesse that in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes whereas with that affirmatiue part of the question to wit whether it bee probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes I do not intermeddle but I do only handle the negatiue part and doe affirme that it is probable he hath no such power which manner of disputing against such Aduersaries who hold it not onely probable but certaine that he hath such a power can in no sort be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as I cleerely shewed before neuerthelesse this my Aduersarie very vnsoundly from hence inferreth that because in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore in practise it is lawfull to concurre to the actuall deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their Kingdomes or for Subiects notwithstanding any sentence of deposition to beare armes against them so long as this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth disputable and vndecided Wherfore my firme resolute and constant opinion is that the Pope hath not power to dispēce or absolue any of his Maiesties Subiects what opinion soeuer in speculation they follow concerning the Popes power to depose Princes from anie promissorie parts of the Oath which onely doe belong to practise and as for the assertory parts of the Oath which belong to speculation they are not subiect to the Popes power of dispencing as I shewed at large in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. 77. Now whether this my doctrine doth not onely giue no securitie to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as this my Aduersarie to procure his Maiesties displeasure against me falsely and vnlearnedly affirmeth if the Pope should denounce any sentence of depriuation against him I leaue to the iudgement of any sensible man Neither is it vnusuall that an opinion or doctrine may in speculation bee probable which yet in practise it is not lawfull to follow as may bee seene in the ministring of corporall physicke and of those Sacraments which are necessarie to saluation For although it bee probable that such a medicine will cure such a dangerous disease for that learned Physicians are of that opinion although other learned Physicians thinke the contrarie to be true or that such a matter or forme be sufficient to the validitie of the Sacrament for example sake of Baptisme because learned Diuines hold it to bee sufficient although other learned Diuines bee of the contrarie opinion and so in speculation both opinions be probable yet in practise wee are bound by the law of charitie to apply to our neighbour those remedies either spirituall or corporall which are out of question and controuersie and to leaue those that are questionable if certaine and vndoubted remedies can be had So likewise althogh it be probable that such a house or land doth not by a lawfull title belong to him who is in lawfull possession thereof for that learned Lawyers are of that opinion although other learned Lawyers thinke the contrarie to bee true and so in speculation both opinions bee probable yet in practise wee are bound by the rules of Iustice not to dispossesse
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
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
Censures which indeede are no errours whatsoeuer these seuere Censours say to the contrary True also it is that Parisiensis citeth a place out of Hostiensis at which Fa. Lessius doth indiscreetly carp r Pag. 30. affirming that he findeth no such thing in Hostiensis yea that Hostiensis hath not written vpon the chapter Ad Abolendam tit de Haereticis as Widdrington iudgeth as neither vpon other texis But neuerthelesse I found in Ostiensis vpon the chapter Ad abolendam that which Ioannes Parisiensis cited out of him and to say that Hostiensis did not write vpon that chapter Ad abolendam is so manifest an vntruth as I obserued in another place Å¿ In my Latin Appendix against Fa Suarez part 1. sec 7 num 14. that I wonder how F. Lessius who is reputed to be a man of so great reading could be ignorant thereof 6 Moreouer that Parisiensis seemeth to bee more enclined to the King then to the Pope he then liuing and teaching at Paris is indeede affirmed but not prooued by Card. Bellarmine And if this manner of censuring learned men and excepting against their authority as men partiall may be approoued it is the readie way to ouerthrow the testimony almost of all the Authours on both sides For it may in the same manner be answered that as such Authours wrote partially in fauour of Kings so others wrote partially in fauour of Popes And therefore Parisiensis himselfe foreseeing this obiection replieth thus For to say saith he t De potest Regia Papali c. 21. ad 41. that so woorthie men among whom some also were Popes did write against their conscience in fauour of Princes or for feare of them is to stretch foorth his mouth against heauen For contrariwise it might be sayd more probably that those Doctours who doe so vnmeasurably aduance the Popes authority doe speake for feare or fauour of him seeing that they are Ecclesiasticall persons who may by him get greater preferment And especially sith that they say although not well that the Pope doth graciously embrace them who do amplifie his authority depresseth them who doe say the contrarie 7 Furthermore neither can D. Schulckenius in my opinion sufficientlie prooue that Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned by Pope Iohn the 22. in that Extrauagant Vas electionis was this Ioannes Parisiensis who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power but some other Doctour of Paris who was called by that name and liued about that time And my coniectures are these First for that the errours which Ioannes de Poliaco maintained concerning confessions made to the mendicant Friers were against the priuiledges which were granted to the mendicant Friers and therefore it is not like that he who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power and was himselfe of the order of the preaching Friers would preach and teach against the priuiledges granted to his Order Secondly if this Ioannes de Poliaco had been of the Order of the preaching Friers as all Authours affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power was it is very like that Pope Iohn the 22. who condemned his errors would haue named him so to be in his Extrauagant as he did in his other Extrauagants name of what Order those Authours were whose errours he condemned as Michael of Cesena William Occam Henricus of Cena and others who neuerthelesse are in some sort excused from errour by D. Sanders u De visib monarch lib. 7. num 161. 8. Thirdly there is no Authour that I haue read who saith that Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned was of the Order of the preaching Fryars neither doth Prateolus who vsually setteth down of what Order those Authours whom he relateth are affirme that this Ioannes de Poliaco was of that Order whereas most Authors who speake of Ioannes Parisiensis that wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power doe affirme that hee was a Dominican Fryar Fourthly neither is there any Authour that I haue read who doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power was called Ioannes de Poliaco Lastly Ioannes Parisiensis was famous in the yeare 1280. according to Trithemius and Kisengremus and according to Card. Bellarmine in the yeare 1296. both which may very well be true for that it may very well fall out that the same man may be a famous Teacher and Preacher for sixteene yeares together but it is very vnlike that one man should for one and fortie yeares together at the least be a famous Reader and Preacher which wee must grant to be true if Ioannes de Poliaco whose errours were condemned and he in person recalled them before the Pope and Cardinalls in publike Consistorie at Auinion in the yeare 1321. and was commanded to teach and preach in the Schooles and pulpit the contrarie doctrine was our Ioannes Parisiensis who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and papall power and was famous in the yeare 1280. 9. But to conclude this point be it so that our Ioannes Parisiensis and Ioannes de Poliaco were one and the selfe same man which yet as I haue shewed hath no great likelihood neuerthelesse the maintaining of those errors doth little repaire the authoritie of IoaÌ„nes Parisiensis in this point but rather from hence a forcible argument may bee drawne to proue that it is no erroneous doctrine to hould that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes by his sentence For besides that it was no great blemish either to the learning or vertue of Ioannes de Poliaco to hold that doctrine concerning confessions which was condemned in that Extrauagant seeing that both many other learned men at that time as Henricus de Gaâ—dano x quodl 2. q. 26. quodl 10. q. 1. a famous Doctour of Paris Durandus a S. Pâ—rtiano y In 4. dist 17. q. 1. a great Schoole-Diuine yea and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris as witnesseth Ioannes Maior z In 4. dist 17. q. 6. a famous Doctour of the same Vniuersitie did maintaine the same and also that he was readie at the first condemnation thereof to recall it and to preach the contrary if at that time the Pope and Cardinalls had also beene perswaded that it was an erroneous doctrine to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes by his sentence and that it belongeth to the Pope to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne by no other coerciue meanes then by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull and that Excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may bee inflicted by the spirituall Iudge all which Ioannes Parisiensis in his treatise of Kingly and papall power did publikely maintaine without doubt the Pope if hee had thought this doctrine to be erroneous would also haue compelled him to recall it it being so greatly preiudiciall to his owne Pontificall
Hir and Hir Dominions they thought themselues not onely bound in câ—â—â—cience not to obey this or any such like Censure but also did promise to yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls 2 Now it is euident that this their protestation which I did at large set downe in my Appendix to Suarez b Part. 2. sec 1. can no way be iustified but vpon supposall that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Queene For if hee had authoritie to depose Hir Shee being then by the Popes sentence depriued of all hir Regall authoritie power and Soueraigntie could not haue as they professed as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer theÌ„ and all the Subiects of the Realme as any of hir Predecessours euer had before Neither also could they although Shee had not been then deposed lawfully promise as out of Suarez I will convince beneath c Num 7. 8. that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions they would neuerthelesse yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls thinking themselues bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like Censure vnlesse they did suppose that the Pope had no power to depose hir Maiestie or to absolue hir Subiects from their obedience 3 And if perchance any of those Priests should now be of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to excuse his former protestation should answer that hee onely intended to acknowledge hir Maiestie to be at that time Queene and to reigne de facto but not de iure besides that he should shew himselfe to be an egregious dissembler equiuocatour and deluder both of hir Maiestie and also of his Holinesse and should therefore deserue to be greatly punished both for deluding the State in a matter of so great weight and also for bringing Catholike Religion in obloquie among Protestants by such detestable dissimulation not to call it flat lying and cosoning which ought to be abhorred of all men â—â—â—t especially Catholike Priests who both by their words and deeds ought to be a patterne to others of Christian sinceritie this Answer can not stand with the words which he protested 4 For first marke the Preamble to their Protestation which clearely confuteth the aforesaid answere Whereas say they it hath pleased our dread Soueraigne Lady to take some notice of the faith and loyaltie of vs her naturall borne Subiects Secular Priests as it appeareth in the late Proclamation and of her Prince-like clemencie hath giuen a sufficient earnest of some mercifull fauour toward vs being all subiect by the lawes of the Realme to death by our returne into the Country after our taking the Order of Priesthood since the first yeere of hir Maiesties reigne and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegiance thereby to be assured of our fidelitie to hir Maiesties Person Crowne Estate and dignitie Wee whose names are vnderwritten in most humble wise prostrate at hir Maiesties feete doe acknowledge our selues infinitely bound vnto hir Maiestie therefore and are most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes First therefore we acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessors euer had and further we protest c. 5 Now were it not an intollerable deluding and mockerie for any of those Priests this Preamble considered to affirme that by the aforesaid words hee did onely intend to acknowledge her Maiesty to bee Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure was this the notice that her Maiesty tooke of the faith of Secular Priests rather then of Iesuites and did her Maiesty by those words and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegeance thereby to bee assured of our fidelitie to her Maiesties person Crowne Estate and Dignitie demand of them that thay should acknowledge her to be Queene onely de facto but not de iure And can Catholike Priests of other Countries giue to their Soueraignes no other assurance of their loyalty then onely to acknowledge them to bee their Kings and to raigne ouer them de facto but not de iure as these Priests did acknowledge themselues to bee most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point vnto her Maiesty as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes No man could make doubt but that shee was Queene and did raigne de facto and so much the whole Christian world and her sworne enemies could not but acknowledge So that according to this shamelesse answer those Priests did giue no other assurance of their loyaltie to Queene Elizabeth then any man might giue to a knowen and manifest vsurper and by those words to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraignty as any her Predecessours euer had did acknowledge her to haue no other power and authoritie then any knowen vsurper hath and which her knowen enemies and who accounted her no lawfull Queene would also acknowledge her to haue that is to be Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure 6. Secondly although one may truely acknowledge an vsurper to be King and to raigne de facto for that this doth onely imply an act fact or possession which may bee without any right at all yet no man can truely acknowledge that an vsurper or who is King de facto onely and not de iure hath authority which doth import a rightfull and lawfull power to raigne and much lesse to haue as full authoritie and power as euer any his Predecessours euer had who were Kings and raigned not onely de facto but also de iure or which is all one did both actually raigne and also had full power and authority to raigne 5 Thirdly not onely the aforesayd acknowledgement that her Maiestie being at that time depriued by the Pope had neuerthelesse as full power and authoritie as any her Predecessours euer had before doth necessarily suppose that the Pope had no authoritie to depriue her but also although shee had not beene at that time depriued by the Pope the other clause of their protestation which contained a promise to obey her in all temporal causes and to defend her c. accounting it their dutie so to doe notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie or euerie one borne within her Maiesties Dominions that would not forsake the aforesayd defence of her Maiestie c. thinking themselues not bound in conscience to obey this or any such like Censure doth necessarily suppose and imply the same to wit that the Pope had no authoritie to depose her which Fa. Suarez arguing against the like clause contained in the new Oath of Allegeance doth most cleerely conuince whose
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
not Popes haue their flatterers and who doe attribute vnto them more ample authoritie then is fitting as of the Canonists Pope Pius the fift affirmed to that learned Nauarre d in cap. Non liceat 12. q. 2. § nu 6. as well as Kings and Emperours See aboue cap 3. nu 6. what Parisiensis saith of this flattering 20 Wherefore to make an end of these Authorities I will onely request the iudicious Reader that he will be pleased to consider these two things first the reasons which I brought both in my Apologie e Num. 449. and also in my f Cap. 3. sec 3. nu 15. seq Theologicall Disputation which D. Schulckenius passeth ouer with silence why there are to be found so few Authours at this present whose writings are now extant who deny the Popes authoritie to depose Princes in comparison of those who doe maintaine the same which being duely considered the Reader will easily perceiue that it is a great maruaile to finde in any Catholike booke any one sentence or clause which seemeth any way to call in question this temporall authoritie of the Pope and neuerthelesse there are at this present and euer haue been as I haue clearely shewed before many vertuous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding all the clamours and threatnings of our ouer-violent Aduersaries are of this opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie to depriue Kings and Princes of their temporall dominions 21 The second is that if the doctrine of that learned Nauarre an excellent Diuine and most skilfull in the Law sayth Posseuine of Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Aurea armilla of Gabriel Vasquez g See the Preface nu 40. 43. and of other Diuines be true that in the Court of conscience it be sufficient to this effect that we shall commit no sinne to choose his opinion for true whom for good cause we thinke to be a man sufficiently learned end of a good conscience and that no man is bound to follow alwayes the better opinion but it sufficeth to follow that opinion which some skilfull Doctors thinke to be true how much the more may our Catholike Countrimen prudently perswade themselues that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes which doctrine not onely one learned and vertuous man but very many with the State of France do approue and who also haue diligently read examined and abundantly answered all the reasons arguments and authorities which their learned Aduersaries haue obiected to the contrarie And this I hope may suffice for the first part and for clearing all those authorities which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation from all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath taken against them Now wee will examine the reasons and intrinsecall grounds of this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes THE SECOND PART Wherein ALL THE PRINCIPALL ARGVments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power together with the Replyes which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same are exactly examined Chap. 1. The true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power is declared 1. BEcause my Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert and all the rest who doe so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes doe much rely vpon the vnion and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall as vpon a principall proofe grounded vpon the light of reason before I come to examine the particular points of his Reply I thinke it not amisse for the better vnderstanding of what shall be said hereafter by either of vs concerning this subordination or vnion to declare in what sort these two powers are among Christians united and subordained and what a weake ground this subordination is to proue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls and to punish temporally by way of coercion or constraint And to proceede orderly herein and that the Reader may clearely perceiue what is the true state of the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine and not be caried away with a confuse concept of I know not what kinde of vnion and subordination I will first set downe that which is certain and out of question and then what is in controuersie betweene vs concerning this vnion and subordination 2. First therefore I agree with Card. Bellarmine in this that the ciuill or temporall power of it owne nature and being considered precisely by it selfe is a distinct power from the spirituall and no way subiect or subordained to it as in my Apologie a Num. 132. seq nu 150. 153. 154. I affirmed out of Card. Bellarmine but they are two seuerall distinct and disunited powers and not depending one of the other and haue distinct ends distinct functions distinct lawes distinct punishments distinct Magistrates and Princes And this is very apparant partly in infidell Countries where there is true ciuill or temporall power saith Card. Bellarmine b Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. without any order or reference to any true Ecclesiasticall or spirit all power and partly in the time of the Apostles who had true and perfect spirituall power without 〈◊〉 true supreme temporall or ciuill authoritie And from hence it followeth that as the supreme spirituall Prince or Pastour is subiect to none in spirituall â—o also the supreme temporall Prince is subiect to none in temporalls 3. Secondly we do also agree in this that although among Christians the temporall and spirituall power do still remaine two distinct supreme powers for that the Mediatour betwixt God and men Christ Iesus hath also by proper actions and distinct dignities distinguished either power as Pope Nicholas the first doth well affirme c In epst ad Michaâ—lem Imp. Cum ad verum dist 96. yet they are so vnited and conioyned together among Christians that temporall authoritie and spirituall authoritie temporall authoritie and spirituall subiection temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection may be vnited and conioined at one or diuerse times in one and the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man may be both a temporall and also a spirituall Prince as we see in the Pope who by the institution of Christ is the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Church and by the consent of Christian Princes and people is become also a temporall Prince the same Christian man may be both a temporall Prince and also a spirituall subiect as are all Christian Princes who as Princes are supreme in temporalls and as Christians are subiect in spirituals to the spirituall Pastour of Christs Church the same Christian man may bee both a temporall and also a spirituall subiect as are other Christians whatsoeuer and whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and yet a temporall subiect dependeth on that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted
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
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
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
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
Cleargie men and especially the Pope from subiection to temporall Princes But the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is whether this manner of vnion and coniunction of these two powers or subiections in the same Christian man be sufficient to make the whole Christian world to be formally one complete and totall body or common wealth consisting of spirituall and temporall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head or else notwithstanding the aforesaid vnion and coniunction the temporall and spirituall common wealth among Christians doe still remaine formally two totall and complete bodies or common wealths the one consisting onely of spirituall and the other only of temporall power although materially and accidentally vnited in one subiect in that manner as I haue now declared 4. Thirdly I doe also make no question but that as the world containing both Christians and infidels and therefore consisting of spirituall and temporall power may be called one complete and totall body or kingdome whereof God onely is the chiefe head and King although in the same totall body or kingdome but not of the same totall body or Kingdome there be many supreme visible heads and Gouernours and consequently being supreme they doe not depend one of the other in so much that neither the temporall power of Infidell Princes is subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope nor the spirituall power of the Pope is subiect to the temporall power of Infidell Princes but both of them are subiect immediately to God alone the inuisible head and King of them both in regard of whom they make one totall body or kingdome although the temporall power alone being compared to the uisible heads on earth doth actually make diuerse totall and complete earthly kingdomes So also I make no question but that the whole Christian world consisting of temporall and spirituall power being compared to Christ the invisible head thereof who at least wise as he is God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords both temporall and spirituall doth make one totall bodie Kingdom or Common-wealth contayning in it both the earthly kingdomes of Christians and the spirituall kingdome of Christ neither of this can there in my iudgement be made any question 5 But the question betwixt me and Card Bellarmine is whether the temporall spirituall power among Christians or the Christian world consisting of both powers not as they are referred to Christ who at least wise as he is God is the invisible head of both powers I say at least wise as he is God for that it is a controuersie betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether Christ as man be only a spirituall or also a temporall King but as they haue relation to their visible heads here on earth doe make one totall and compleat bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and Christian Kings are not supreme but depending on him not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls or whether the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe truly properly and formally make two entire and complete bodies Kingdoms or Common-wealths to wit the earthly kingdoms of this Christian world consisting only of temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the supreme visible heads and therefore in temporalls subiect to no other visible head here on earth and the spirituall kingdom and mysticall body of Christ consisting onely of spirituall power whereof the Pope onely is the supreme visible head Prince and Pastour and consequently in spiritualls subiect to no other visible head or Superiour on earth This is the true state of the question 6 Concerning which question there is a great controuersie betwixt the Canonists and Diuines For the Canonists supposing Christ our Sauiour to bee not onely a spirituall but also a temporall King and to haue directly and properly both temporall and spirituall power ouer the whole world and that hee gaue this power to his Generall Vicar here on earth S. Peter and his Successors doe consequently affirme that the whole world but especially which is Christian consisting of spirituall and temporall power doth make one entire or totall body whereof the Pope being by the institution of Christ not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch is the supreme visible head to whom all Princes especially who are Christians are subiect not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls But contrariwise the Diuines who doe hold that Christ as man was not a temporall but only a spirituall King and although hee had directly both temporall and spirituall power yet that he gaue to S. Peter and his Successors onely the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes and only spirituall not temporall authoritie are consequently bound to maintaine that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to the visible heads here on earth doe not truly properly and formally make one totall and entire body or kingdome whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head but two totall and entire bodies or kingdomes but vnited in subiect as I declared before to wit earthly kingdomes consisting only of temporall authoritie whereof temporall Princes only are the supreme visible heads and the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ consisting only of spirituall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head Prince and Pastour 7 Now what is the opinion of Card Bellarmine touching this point for that he speaketh so contrarie to his owne principles truly I can not tell For although he adhereth to the Diuines and impugneth the Canonists in that they hold the Pope to be not only a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch of the world and to haue directly power in temporalls yet contrarie to this his doctrine as you shall see in the next chapter he doth in expresse words whatsoeuer his meaning is affirme that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall and entire bodie Familie Cittie Kingdome or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head yea he is so confident in this his assertion that he feareth not to auerre d in his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. that it is against the Catholike faith to say that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power are not parts of one and the same Common-wealth but that they make altogether two common-wealths vnlesse this distinction and explication be added to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe make one totall common-wealth which e Cap. 7. p. 287. pag. 340. afterwards he calleth the familie cittie Kingdome mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and two partiall which are indeed distinct by acts offices dignities and ends but connected betweene themselues and one subordained to the other But how weakely and contrarie to his owne principles Card Bellarmine proueth this vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power you shall forthwith perceiue Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the authoritie of S. Paul
dependeth vpon the other now his argument proceedeth thus Members doe depend vpon the head the Pope is head of the Church therefore Kings who are members of the Church doe depend vpon the Pope which are two distinct arguments yet both of them fallacious and insufficient to proue that the temporall power it selfe or which is all one that temporall Kings in temporall causes are subiect to the Pope as you haue seene before 9. Thirdly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that the assertion of D. Barclay comparing these two powers to two shoulders of the Church which are connected to one head who is Christ doth appertaine to the heresie of this time which affirmeth that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church and that D. Barclay doth of his owne accord grant thus much M. Iohn Barclay answereth that Card. Bellarmine doth in this both slander D. Barclay and also maketh the Church and Pope odious to Princes For what Protestant reading this may not with very good reason conclude that Catholikes according to Card. Bellarmines doctrin when they say that the Pope is the visible head of the Church and that this is a point of Catholike-faith doe vnderstand that he is head and Gouernour not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill causes what wise men of this world will not relate these sayings to Princes and what Prince can without indignation here them Neither did D. Barclay euer make any doubt but that the Pope Christs Vicar in earth was head in Ecclesiasticall causes neither did Catholike faith euer teach that he was head in ciuill causes Only Christ is head of Popes and Kings the chiefe head I say of the Church Whereupon S. Austin doth affirme f In serm de remiss pec refertur 1. q. 1. can Vt eui denter that an excommunicated person is out of the Church and out of the body whereof Christ is the head 10. And therefore that similitude betweene the soule and body compounding one man and the spirituall and ciuill power compounding one Church or rather one Christian common wealth or Christian world is no fit similitude and it is wrongfully ascribed to S. Gregorie Nazianzene by Card. Bellarmine as I shewed before g Cap. 3. for that the soule is as the forme and the body as the matter compounding one essentiall thing which is man but the ciuill power is not as the matter nor the spirituall as the forme compounding one essentiall body which is the Church of Christ but if we will haue them to compound one totall body which is the Church taking the Church for the Christian world consisting both of the temporal and spirituall power which are in Christians whereof Christ or God and not the Pope is the head they are onely integrall to vse the termes of Philosophers and not essentiall parts neither doe they compound one essentiall but only one integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessary that one part doth depend vpon the other as hath beene now conuinced but all must of necessitie depend vpon the head although in an essentiall compound one part must of necessitie depend vpon the other for that in such a compound one part must bee as the matter and the other as the forme as I declared before 11. Wherefore the spirituall and ciuill power in the Church taking the Church for the Christian world containing in it both powers or which is all one for the company of all Christians in whome are both powers or both subiections are not like to the soule and body which are essentiall parts of man but they are as two shoulders or two sides which are only integrall parts of mans body both which powers although each of them in their kinde bee a visible head the one of temporals the other of spirituals and in that respect doe formally make two totall bodies to wit earthly kingdomes whereof temporall Princes are the head and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the chiefe visible head yet they are connected to one celestiall and inuisible head which is Christ in which respect they make one totall body whereof Christ onely and not the Pope is head which may bee called the Christian world consisting of earthly kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ 12. Neither is it true that these two powers be of so diuerse a kinde that they cannot be well compared to two shoulders for both of them are powers and in that respect of the same kinde and as powers they are compared to two shoulders And why may they not bee aptly compared to two shoulders seeing that there is nothing more strong and more neere to the head in the Christian common-wealth Neither is it materiall that one is a more strong shoulder then the other for in mans body the right arme is stronger then the left and yet one is not more an arme then the other May not I pray you two pillars of a diuerse kinde one of brasse the other of marble bee aptly compared one with the other in that both of them are pillars The temporall and the ciuill power or Kings as Kings and hauing temporall authoritie and Bishops as Bishops and hauing spirituall power are as two visible pillars which doe sustaine the edifice of the Christian world or common-wealth the one in temporalls the other in spirituals they are as two shoulders which as in mans body are next vnder the head and all the other inferiour members doe depend vpon them so also they are next vnder God the head of both and all other inferiour members of the Christian world doe depend vpon them nay being compared to the inferiour members of the Christian world they are also as two visible and ministeriall heads from whence as from the head of mans body which is the roote beginning and foundation of all sense and motion in all the inferiour parts all spirituall and temporall directions Lawes and punishments doe proceed 13. And truely if D. Barclay must bee taxed of heresie for comparing the temporall and spirituall power in the Church or Christian world for now the Church and Christian world which consisteth of both powers is taken for all one to two shoulders and for affirming that Christ only is the chiefe celestial and invisible head of both these powers and that Kings and Popes are two ministeriall heads thereof although both of them are also principall in their owne kinde and in the nature of a visible head then must Hugo de S. Victore be taxed of heresie when he compareth i Lib. 2. de Saâ—ram p. 2. ca. 3. these two powers to two sides affirming that Lay-men who haue care of earthly things are the left side of this body and Clergie men who do minister spirituall things are the right and that earthly power hath the King for the head and the spirituall hath the Pope for head Lo heere two sides and consequently two shoulders and two
which hee appealed to Caesar was spirituall d In tract contra Barcl cap. 3 pag. 51. which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in another place e Lib 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. that S. Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar and did acknowledge him for his Iudge when he was accused of raysing sedition and tumults in the people And moreouer to omit sundry other his contradictions that the Church of Christ is compounded f See aboue cap. 2. of spirituall and temporall power as a man is compounded of soule and body and that the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth doe make one totall body whereof the Pope is head as a man is compounded of bâ—dy and soule which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in other places that the Church of Christ is compounded onely of spirituall power and that the Pope if wee will speake properly hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 18 But secondly although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour therefore sonnes are free c. were meant of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar and not to the temple yet Card. Bellarmine himselfe did in the former Editions of his Controuersies giue therevnto a very sufficient answer and which in his latter Editions he hath not confuted For thus he writeth g lib. 1. de Clericis Cap. 28. I answer first that this place doth not conuince for otherwise he should exempt from tributes all Christians who are regenerate by Baptisme Secondly I answer that our Sauiour doth speake onely of himselfe For he maketh this Argument The sonnes of Kinges are free from tributes because they neither pay tribute to their fathers for that the goods of the parents and children are common nor to other Kings because they are not subiect to them but I am the sonne of the first and chiefest King therefore I owe tribute to no man Wherfore when our Sauiour saith therefore Sonnes are free from thence hee meant onely to gather this that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men hee affirmed nothing 19 Thus answered Card. Bellarmine in times past when he followed the opinion of the Diuines concerning the exemption of Clergy men against the Canonists who vrged this place of holy Scriptue to proue that Clergy men are exempted from paying of tributes by the law of God But now forsooth he forsaketh the Diuines and this very text therefore sonnes are free which then hee brought for an obiection against his opinion and cleerely answered the same he bringeth now for a chiefe ground to proue his new opinion and which is very remarkable hee concealeth the answer which he then made to the said obiection onely hee addeth this that when the sonnes of Kings are exempted from tribute not onely their owne persons but also their seruants and Ministers and so their families are exempted from tributes But it is certaine that all Clergie men do properly appertaine to the family of Christ who is the sonne of the King of Kings And this our Lord did seeme to signifie when hee said to S. Peter But that wee may not scandalize them finding the stater take it and giue it for me and thee As though he should say that both hee and his family whereof S. Peter was a chiefe gouernour ought to bee free from tributes Which also S. Hierome doth seeme to haue vnderstood in his Commentary of that place when hee saith that Clergy men doe not pay tributes for the honour of our Lord and are as Kings children free from tributes and S. Austin lib. 1. qq Euang. q. 23. where he writeth that in euery earthly Kingdome the children of that Kingdome vnder which are all the Kingdomes of the earth ought to be free not are free as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth S. Austin to say from tributes 20 Thus you see how Card. Bellarmine runneth vp and downe from the words of holy Scripture by which it is demonstrated saith he that S. Peter was not bound to pay tribute to Caesar to the sense which he himselfe disproueth and then from the sense to his priuate collections and inferences that if S. Peter was free all the Apostles were free and if all the Apostles all Cleargie men But if it had pleased him to haue also set downe the answere which in the former Editions of his bookes he made to this obiection the Reader would easily haue perceiued that from this place of holy Scripture no sufficient reason could be gathered to cause him to recall his former opinion although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour were meant of the tribute which was to be paide to Caesar of which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine will not haue them to be vnderstood but onely of the tribute which the children of Israell were by the law of God Exod. 30. commanded to pay for their soules vnto the vse of the tabernacle of testimonie for at that time the temple was not built For first saith he if this argument did conuince not onely Cleargie men but also all Christians who being regenerate by baptisme are the children of Christ and also doe properly appertaine to his spirituall familie or Church of which S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles vnder him were chiefe gouernours should be exempted from paying tributes Secondly our Sauiour saith he doth speake onely of himselfe who was the sonne of the first and chiefest King and that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men he affirmeth nothing 21 Thirdly to the authority of S. Hierome he answereth that S. Hierome did not intend in that place to proue out of the Gospell that Cleargie men are free from tribute but onely he doth bring a certaine congruence wherefore they are freed by the decrees of Priâ—ces for therefore he saith that they doe not pay tributes as the children of the Kingdome and he addeth an other cause to wit the honor of Christ for he saith that for his honour Cleargie men doe not pay tributs Therfore not the law of God but the decrees of Princes made for the honour of Christ haue exempted Cleargy men Thus Card. Bellarmine 22 Fourthly to the authority of S. Augustine he answereth that although Iansenius whom Salmeron and Suarez doe follow doth affirme that S. Austen by the children of the supreme kingdome did vnderstand the naturall children of God and that he spake in the plurall number to obserue the manner of our Sauiours spech so that the meaning of S. Austen was that all the naturall sonnes of God if it were possible that God could haue more naturall sonnes then one should be exempted from paying of earthly tributes yet Card. Bellarmine doth not like well of this answere and therefore he thinketh the answere of Abulensis to be the more probable that S. Austen did not vnderstand naturall children but Clergie men and Monkes who as also S. Hierome affirmeth in Cap. 17 Mat. were and are
by Gregorius de Valentia a Secunda secundae Disp 1. q 12 â—unc 2. assertio secuÌ„da Schioppius b In his Ecclesiasticus cap. 42. pag 140. and now lately by Suarez c In dâ—fâ—es fidei lib. 6. cap. 4. nu 18. 20. for which cause principally his book was by a sollemne decree of the Parliament publikely condemned and burnt at Paris by the hangman as containing damnable pernicious scandalous and seditious propositions tending to the subuersion of States and to induce the subiects of Kings and Soueraigne Princes and others to attempt against their sacred persons neither is that Decree which was publâ—shed and printed by the Kings authority as yet recalled or Suarez booke permitted by authority to be sold at Paris howsoeuer some fauourers of the Iesuits doe not sticke to affirme heere among the common people Yea and M. Fitzherbert himselfe although hee will not forsooth meddle with the liues of Princes yet boldly affirmeth d Cap. â— nu 15. 16. 17. that the Pope hath power to take away my life and hath power ouer the goods and liues of all Christians which wordes beeing generall and including all Christians and consequently Christian Princes according to his doctrine as you shall see beneath e Part. 3. cap. 9. 10. doe cleerely shew what his opin on and iudgement is in this poynt touching the killing also or murdering of Christian Princes 61. Now to his argument First therefore his Maior proposition I doe willingly grant to wit that if there be any doubt or question concerning the sense of any law or any part thereof and consequently for the cleering of any difficulty or doubt in this oath three things are specially to be pondered for the exposition of it the words of the law the mind or intention of the law-maker and the reason or end of the law and that the words of the law and consequently of this oath are to be vnderstood in their proper and vsuall signification as also by a peculiar clause it is expressly ordained therein And of this his Maior proposition no man maketh doubt 62. But his Minor proposition I vtterly deny and to his first proofe thereof I answere as easily but more fully with the like words which hee himselfe vseth For I affirme that the contrary is euident and that the words of this clause now in question do make clearely for vs wherein I dare boldly appeale to the iudgement of any learned and discreet Reader for that no man of any learning or iudgement who knoweth the difference betwixt an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implieth a free choice to take either part of the disiunction I doe not say at the first sight but after mature diliberation and a diligent examination of all the words of this clause and of the natures of an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition will or can reasonably conceiue that in a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a freedome to choose which part of the disiunction one will as is the proposition which is now in question both parts of the disiunction must be abiured alike for that to make the whole conditionall disiunctiue proposition to be hereticall or to be abiured as hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as I may truly and lawfully abiure this proposition as hereticall God may be honoured or blasphemed by his creatures or which is all one it is in the free choice of creatures to honour or to blaspheme God wherein one onely part of the disiunction is hereticall and the other of faith and so both parts of the disiunction are not abiured as hereticall although the whole and entire proposition be hereticall and may therefore be truely abiured as hereticall 63. What any learned man but especially the vulgar sort of Catholikes considering the different grounds of Catholikes and Protestants in points of Religion and that the oath was made by a Protestant Parliament and that the title of the Act wherein the taking thereof is commanded is for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants and such like reasons may at the first sight conceiue of the lawfulnesse thereof as also what they may at the first sight conceiue of the sense of this clause which is now in question considering that the coniunction disiunctiue or doth more vsually make an absolute disiunctiue then a conditionall disiunctiue proposition for that where once it followeth the verbe may and consequently maketh a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which is equiualent to a copulatiue aboue a hundred times at least it doth not follow the verbe may but maketh an absolute disiunctiue proposition and withall not examining the difference betwixt an absolute and a conditionall disiunctiue proposition may I say at the first sight conceiue of the esens and meaning of this clause of the Oath is no sufficient Argument to proue that this clause or any other of the Oath is according to the true proper and vsuall vnderstanding of the wordes in very deed vnlawfull For many things may seeme to bee so at the first sight which after a second reuiew and a more diligent examination of the matter do seeme to be far otherwise 64 My Aduersary following therein Card Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Suarez did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to excommunicate the King was denyed in this Oath but at the second sight and vpon better consideration hee hath as it seemes perceiued his error and ouer sight for that being charged therewith by me hee hath passed it ouer altogether with silence Many also of our English Catholikes did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to absolue from sinnes to grant Pardons and indulgences and to dispense in oathes was denyed in this oath taking some colour or pretence from those words absolue pardons and dispensations but after the second sight they saw that there was no such thing as at the first sight they conceiued Many such like exceptions I could alleadge which at the first sight some conceiued against the Oath which vpon the second review and after a more diligent consideration appeared to haue no firme ground to rely vpon 65 But if any learned or discreet Catholick man will make a second review and a more diligent examination of the Oath and of all the clauses and wordes contained therein and wil also duly consider which I obserued in my Theologicall disputation f Cap. 4. sec 3 the difference betwixt the opinion and the intention of his Maiesty and that although his Maiesty and the Parliament be of opinion that the Pope hath no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yeâ— they did not intend to binde Catholiks to acknowledge so much in this Oath and that although the title of that Act wherein many lawes were enacted against Catholiques touching points of Religion for the which it might well be called an Act for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants euen for