to the Germans or French by the Popes sole authoritie but by the consent suffrages and authoritie also of the people which neuerthelesse are principall authorities which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Finally others although they be of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for heresie or which is a farre different question to declare them to be deposed for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause but doth absolutely in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good extend this pretended authoritie 19. Neither is it true that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion as M. Fitzherbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affirmeth I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua for that not onely his booke but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes And although I had vrged his authority in that sort as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe not for that I thinke the authority of an heretike barely considered by it selfe to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith but for that Marsilius writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies he should by Catholike Authours who write of heresies as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others bee particularly taxed of those heresies and yet his doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes which was the principall subiect of his booke should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous for this is a forcible argument that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine 20. True also it is that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion for that hee vehemently impugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes both against Pope Gregorie the seuenth and also Paschalis the second calling it a noueltie not to say an heresie and answering as he saith with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power But Sigebert saith D. Schulckenius was a Schismatike and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth and Paschalis the second are condemned by the Catholike Romane Church But truly it is strange and greatly to be lamented to see some Catholikes now adaies especially who professe sanctitie of life and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame and slander other Catholikes who dislike their opinions or proceedings with such enormious crimes as are Schisme heresie and Apostacie What reason had Card. Baronius of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same to call Sigebert a Schismatike he being by no other Authour that I haue read before Baronius charged with that heinous crime but was euer reputed a learned vertuous and religious Catholike truely I cannot in any wise perceiue Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church or a refusing to obey the Pope as he is the visible head of the Church and Christ his Vicegerent on earth 21 For obserue diligently saith Card. Caietane y 2a 2a q. 39. ar 2. in resp ad 2m that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies First in regard of the thing commanded Secondly in regard of the person commanding and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge or commander For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence to wit for that he will not fulfill that which the Pope hath commanded as to abstaine from such a warre to restore such a State c. although hee should most greiuously sinne yet he is not for this a Schismatike For it falleth out and that often that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthelesse to be his Superior For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence but also his immediate iudgement or sentence being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme nor any other crime For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things and to be warie of dangers And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically so much the easier by how much he is more potent and feareth no reuenger on earth But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sentence in regard of his office not acknowledging him to be his Superiour although he do beleiue he is then properly he is a Schismatike And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope or of the Church so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him to acknowledge him for Superiour c. Thus Card. Caietane 22. Now what Authour euer said that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape and not Gregorie to be the true and lawful Pope True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some as Trithemius z In verbo Sigebertus relateth for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church wrote letters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth whih did not become his profession but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church or that he refused to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church and in deposing Gregorie and creating Guibert Pope neither D. Schulckenius nor any other is able to prooue out of any ancient or moderne writer 23. True also it is that Sigebert was of this opinion that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Emperour and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Gregorie and answered as hee saith all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour and refused to obey Pope Gregories command wherein hee strictly ordained that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour But considering that the doctrine for the Popes power to dethrone temporall Princes and the practise thereof was then new in the Church of God and neuer
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
free from tributes as those who appertaine to the familie of Christ. Neither doth it therefore from hence follow that Cleargie men are by the law of God free from tributes For first that which S. Austen saith is not in the words of our Sauiour but it is onely gathered by a probable consequence For our Sauiour doth onely speake of the true and naturall children of Kinges as S. Chrysostome doth expound that place Secondly our Sauiour himselfe doth allso properly command nothing in this place that it may be called the law of God but doth onely shew by the vse and custome of men that the children of Kinges are free from tributes Thus Card. Bellarmine answered in his former Editions which answere in his later editions he altogether concealeth but for what cause I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader 23 By all which it is apparant that our Sauiour did onely speake of himselfe and of the naturall children of Kings when hee vsed those words therefore sonnes are free and of the seruants or familie either of Kings or of the children of Kinges he saith nothing at all and therefore from an other consequence drawne from the vse and custome of men and not from the words of our Sauiour can it be gathered that those who are seruants or of the familie of the children of Kings are exempted either from subiection to the inferiour magistrates of the kingdome or from the paying of tributs But by no probable consequence it can be deduced that those who are either seruants and of the familie of Kinges children or also seruants and of the familie of the King himselfe are by the custome of any nation either exempted from subiection to inferiour Magistrates and much lesse to the King himselfe or also from paying tributes vnlesse the King vpon some other speciall consideration doth grant to any of them such a priuiledge 24 To those words of our Sauiour But that wee may not scandalize them c. it is easily answered according to the first exposition of that didrachme which Card. Bellarmine thinketh to be most true that it was a tribute due to the temple or tabernacle and not to Caesar For I doe willingly grant that S. Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe gouernour of his Church and temple was exempted from paying tribute to the temple But although we should admit that the aforesaide didrachme was a tribute due to Caesar and not to the temple yet from those words of our Sauiour no sufficient argument can be drawne to proue that S. Peter and especially the rest of the Apostles were by the law of God exempted from paying tributes and much lesse from temporall subiection to Heathen Princes 25 First for that we may probably answere with Iansenius and Abulensis that Christ did speake to S. Peter in the plurall number but that wee may not scandalize them not for that S. Peter was bound to pay tribute onely by reason of scandall but either because our Sauiour did speake of his owne person vsing the plurall number for the singular as it is vsuall especially among great persons we are wont saith S. Epiphanius h In the heresie of the Manichies to speake singular thinges plurall and plurall singular For wee say wee haue tould you and we haue seene you and we come to you and yet there be not two who speake but one who is present or else because the scandall which Christ should haue giuen would in some sort haue redounded to S. Peter as being a mediatour in that businesse And therefore as well affirmeth Iansenius i In Câ—ncord Euang. cap. 69. in Mat. 17. our Sauiour did pay tribute for himselfe onely to auoid scandall for S. Peter to honour him as with a certaine reward for his faith obedience and diligence as a mediatour of this busines and an executor of the Miracle of finding the stater in the fishes mouth or as Barradius the Iesuite and others doe affirme k In cap 17. Mat. â—om 2. Lib. 10. cap. 32. to honour him aboue the rest as the Prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church See Abulensis q. 198. 199. and 200. in cap. 17. Mat. and Barradius vpon this place 26 Secondly although wee should grant that our Sauiour did for some speciall cause exempt S. Peter from paying tribute to Caesar either by a personall priuiledge or else reall and descending to his successors it doth not therefore follow that he did exempt him from all ciuil subiection to temporal Princes as neither doth it follow that because the Children of Kinges for that their goodes and their fathers are common or any of the Kinges seruants are by speciall priuiledge exempted from paying tributes they are therefore exempted from all ciuil subiection and alleagiance to the King 27 Thirdly for that there is no probabilitie in my iudgment that either Christ did by those words intend to exempt the rest of the Apostles seeing that there is no mention at all made of them in that place or also that this priuiledg of exemption is extended to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in regard onely that they were of the spirituall familie or Church of Christ I say of the spirituall familie for that I will not deny but that as they were of his corporall familie and liued with him here on earth and had no corporall goods but such as belonged to Christ they were exempted from paying tributes but not from ciuill subiection to Heathen Princes because the exemption of seruants with their Maister or of those who are of the familie of Kinges Children with the Kinges Children themselues is not grounded in the law of nature but onely in a certaine congruity and custome of men from which custome this argument to exempt the Apostles for that they were of Christs familie is drawne but there is no such custome among nations that the seruants or familie of Kinges Children or of the King himselfe are exempted from paying tributes although the children of Kinges hauing no other goodes then which are their fathers be exempted as Card. Bellarmine a little aboue affirmed But howsoeuer neither the seruants to Kinges children nor the kinges children themselues are exempted from ciuill subiection or from the directiue or coerciue power of the King 28 And therefore neither Fa. Suarez who handleth this question at large dare affirme that from those words of our Sauiour it can certainely but onely probably be gathered that this exemption was extended to the rest of the Apostles I answere saith hee l In defens fidâ— Caâ—â—o 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap. 8. in sine that it is true that Christ did not say plainly that the familie is exempted with the children neither doth it follow by any euident or necessary consequence and therefore the aforesaid opinion for as much as belongeth to this part is neither of faith nor altogether certaine Neuerthelesse it is most likely that this extention to
the ends of the temporall and spirituall power to prooue that the temporall power among Christians as it is temporall is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is propounded Widdringtons answer to the same related and D. Schulckenius Reply therunto cleerly confuted Chap. 6. Wherein Card. Bellarmines second argument to proue the same taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church is rehearsed the Answer of Widdrington of Mr. D. Barclay and of Mr. Iohn Barclay thereunto is related and Card. Bellarmines Reply to the same is most cleerely ouerthrowen Chap. 7. Wherein Card. Bellarmines third argument to prooue the same taken from the obligation by which Christian Princes are bound to change their temporall gouernment if it hinder the spirituall good is related Widdringtons answer to the same rehearsed and D. Schulckenius Reply threunto prooued to be vnsound fraudulent and repugnant to his owne grounds Chap. 8. Wherein Card. Bellarmines fourth argument taken from the authority of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man is cleerely conuinced to bee no fit similitude to prooue that the temporall power among Christians is per se subiect to the spirituall and that tht Pope hath power to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes but that is rather a fit similitude to prooue the flat contrary Chap. 9. Wherein the fift argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the authority of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the eight affirming that in the Church are two swords and that the sword is vnder the sword is rehearsed Widdringtons answer thereunto related D. Schulckenius Reply confuted and cleerely prooued that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but expressely impugne the Popes power to vse the temporall sword and that Pope Boniface did challenge a direct temporall Monarchie ouer the whole world and that Extrauagant vnam Sanctam was reuersed by Pope Clement the next Successour but one to Boniface and withall that Pope Boniface his words may be vnderstood in a true sense Chap. 10. Wherein Card. Bellarmines sixt and last argument taken from the authoritie of Pope Innocent the third comparing the spirituall and temporall power to the Sunne and Moone is answered Secondly Card. Bellarmines reasons which moued him to recall his opinion touching the subiection of S. Paul to Caesar and of Cleargie men to temporall Princes are confuted and some of them by his own grounds whereby it is cleerely proued that without iust cause he hath departed from his ancient and the common doctrine of the Schoole Diuines to follow the Canonists and also that not without some note of temeritie hee hath condemned as improbable the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines who also follow therein the Ancient Fathers Thirdly the true state of the question concerning the power of spirituall Pastors to exempt Cleargie-men from the authoritie of temporall Princes is declared whereby it is made apparant how weake or strong an argument can be drawne from the Popes power to exempt Cleargie men from all subiection to temporall Princes to proue his power to depriue temporall Princes of their Regall authoritie The Adioynder Wherein first it is cleerely shewed that Widdrington hath truely charged Mr. Fitzherbert with falsitie in two respects 2 Widdringtons first exposition of that clause of the oath Also I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious hereticall this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer is proued to be sound and sufficient and to be voide of all absurditie or contradiction as is conuinced by those foure examples of propositions which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to confute the same 3 Mr. Fitsherberts fraude and ignorance are discouered and the causes of his errour are declared 4 The two vsuall significations of the word hereticall among Catholikes are laid open whereby it is made manifest that not onely the doctrine of murthering but also of deposing Princes may bee truely abiured for hereticall 5 Widdringtons second exposition of the aforesaid clause is proued to be sound and agreeable to the common sense and vnderstanding of the words and Mr. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are proued to be insufficient and not agreeable to the approued rules assigned by Diuines and Lawiers for the interpreting of the words of euery Law 6 Lastly Widdrington from the premises draweth foure conclusions cleane opposite to the foure conclusions which Mr. Fitzherbert from his premises collecteth and finally he concludeth that neither this clause nor any other is sufficient to make the oath vnlawfull or to moue any Catholike to refuse the same adding withall what little hope of sinceritie and sufficiencie the Reader may expect from the rest of Mr Fitzherberts Replyes seeing that in this of which neuerthelesse hee and his fauourers doe so greatly bragge hee hath shewed such great want of learning and sinceritie TO ALL ENGLISH CATHOLIKES who are of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose temporal PRINCES ROGER WIDDRINGTON their Brother and Seruant in CHRIST wisheth true zeale knovvledge and felicitie 1I Haue written here a Treatise in answere to Mr. Fitzherberts Reply touching the POPES power to depose PRINCES and the new oath of Allegiance which I thought fit to Dedicate to you Deare Countrimen those especially who haue taken vpon you a charge to teach and instruct others for that the matter which here is handled doth as much concerne your soules and consciences or rather much more then my owne Doe not you imagine that when there is a controuersie betwixt his Holinesse and your Soueraigne concerning your spirituall and temporall allegiance you may safely and without danger of deadly sinne adhere to his Holinesse and forsake your Soueraigne vnlesse you duly examine the right and title which either haue for that by the law of GOD and Nature you are bound to giue to GOD and Caesar that which is their due that is spirituall obedience to your spirituall Pastours and temporall allegiance to your temporall Prince Wherefore if the Pope should challenge and exact from you not onely spirituall obedience which is due to him but vnder colour of spirituall obedience should demand also temporall allegiance which is not due to him but onely to your temporall Prince you should in obeying the Pope therein yeeld him that obedience which is due only to your temporall Prince and so transgresse the law of GOD and nature and consequently it being a matter of so great moment you should according to the approued doctrine of all Diuines by yeelding such obedience incurre a most heinous deadly sinne 2. For as there are but two only supreme powers on earth to which all Christian subiects doe owe obedience and subiection to wit spirituall which doth reside speciallie in the chiefe spirituall Pastour who in things spirituall is supreme and temporall power which doth reside in temporall
intangle mens consciences by wrangling and cauilling whiles first he requireth euident demonstrations to proue a probable doctrine and secondly dissembleth the true state of the question confounding the absolute proposition and the proofes thereof with the modall which distinction doth expresse the true state of the question and discouereth both his fraude and weakenesse not onely in this but almost in all the rest of his Replyes and thirdly he concealeth the answere which I gaue to this argument taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of other learned men and also the reasons why so many learned Catholikes whose bookes are now extant haue from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth defended this opinion for the Popes power to depose Princes And thus much concerning my Aduersaries second admonition the weakenesse whereof will also presently more cleerely appeare by my answere to his third and fourth admonition 27 Therefore it is to be considered for the third point saith my Aduersarie h Nu. 15. what Widdrington meaneth by a probable opinion or a probable answere which no doubt he vnderstandeth so that whatsoeuer he saith must be held for probable how absurd so euer it be for otherwise he could not challenge to himselfe such a priuiledge of probabilitie as he doth his arguments and answers being so weake and impertinent as you shall finde them to be in which respect he is faine to dissemble the answeres already made by some to his former arguments and authorities in his Apologie whereto he now remitteth his Reader very often without taking so much as any knowledge of the confutation thereof as though the same had neuer been answered or that euery assertion or position of his being once laid downe must needs stand for an eternall law or were a decree of the Medes and Persians i Dan 6. quod non licet immutari 28 But not to returne these bitter speeches of my Aduersarie backe vpon himselfe which with the same facilitie and with farre better reason I might doe first It is very vntrue that I take probable for whatsoeuer I doe say how absurd so euer it be as this man if it were lawfull for mee to vse his absurd word very absurdly affirmeth that without doubt I doe Neither doe I take probable for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie as Cicero tooke probable in his Paradoxes but I take probable as Philosophers and Diuines doe take it as it is distinguished from demonstratiue and fallacious to wit for that which is approued by wise and learned men in the art which they professe which therefore as in speculation may be embraced without any imputation of errour or folly so in practise it may bee followed without any note of imprudence or sinne As in a matter of Physicke that is accounted probable which is approued by learned Physitions of Law by learned Lawiers and of Diuinitie by learned Catholike Diuines Secondly it is also vntrue that I haue in my Theologicall Disputation dissembled the answeres made by some to my former arguments and authorities in my Apologie whereto I remit my Reader oftentimes considering that my Theologicall Disputation was wholly finished and in the presse before the Replyes of D. Schulkenius and of D. Weston and also my Aduersaries Supplement were published so that I could take no notice of them in my Disputation for which cause I was constrained to touch them briefely onely in an Admonition to the Reader But my Aduersarie himselfe to make his owne Replyes to seeme the more probable and my answeres absurd foolish impertinent ridiculous for so hee is pleased to call them is not ashamed to dissemble in many points the true state of the question and also the answeres which in my Theological Disputation I made to his chiefest Replyes especially those whereby hee laboureth to terrifie the timerous consciences of vnlearned Catholikes with the pretence of his new Catholike faith with the authoritie of the Popes Breues and the testimonies of so many learned men who haue condemned the oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation 29. Now let vs see his fourth consideration by which the Reader may perceiue how insufficiently he declareth what is a probable argument or opinion and how little he satisfieth the vnderstanding of vnlearned Catholikes who by his obscure and confuse description of a probable argument cannot perceiue what argument or opinion is probable k Num. 17. Fourthly saith he it is to be considered that to make an argument or proofe probable it sufficeth not that it seeme good and true in it selfe but it must also be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments and proofes of the contrary opinion for often it falleth out that the reasons of one part are so pregnant that they seeme to conuince and yet when they are weighed with the reasons of the other part they are neither pregnant nor so much as probable for according to the old prouerbe one tale is good vntill an other be heard 30. To which purpose it is to be considered that many heretikes and namely the Arians of whom there are many euen at this day both doe and may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for their opinion than Widdrington doth or can for his considering their aboundant allegation of Scriptures their subtill shifts in answering the arguments and obiections of the Catholikes the great multitude of learned men of their Sect in times past and their dignitie in the Church the Conuenticles assembled and held in their fauour and finally the ample propagation of their opinion and Sect especially in the time of Constantius the Emperour For which respects their followers at this day doe hold their doctrine not only for probable but also for infallibly true and condemne the contrary for pernicious heresie whereas Widdringtons grounds and proofes of his opinion seeme to himselfe so weake that he dare not affirme them to be more then probable 31. Therefore as there is no good Christian that doth now hold the arguments of the Arrians to be so much as probable considering the potent reasons and proofes of the Catholike doctrine in that point so albeit the arguments and authorities which Widdrington produceth were they farre more plausible and pregnant then they are yet no Catholike could esteeme them to be any way probable being compared and ballanced with the irrefregable proofes of the other part I meane the arguments and necessarie consequences drawne from the holy Scriptures the authoritie of almost all the learned Doctors and Diuines that haue written of that point and the practise of the Church for some hundreths of yeares confirmed by nine or ten Councells l Sâ—e Supplem chap. 2. num 76. 77. whereof some haue been the greatest that euer were in Gods Church and therefore I say that all this being well weighed no Catholike man of sound wit or iudgment can imagine this mans arguments which he himselfe houldeth but for probable to haue
any probabilitie in the world or to proue any thing else but his weakenesse wilfulnesse and folly in propounding and mainteining them 32. For albeit he teacheth out of Vasquez m Disput Theolog cap. 10. sec 2. num 7. vsque ad num 21. and others that of two opinions the lesse probable and lesse safe may securely be followed and that the opinion of a few yea of one approued Doctor sufficeth sometimes to make an opinion probable though many hold the contrary to that one Doctor to which purpose he filleth aboue a dozen pages of his booke with Vasquez his doctrine and text yet he is absurd in applying the same to this our case for although Vasquez doe teach n 1 a. 2 a. disp 62. cap. 1. nu 1. that a man may in doubtfull cases or questions securely follow the opinion of a few learned Doctours though the same be lesse safe and probable then the contrarie opinion held by many yet he is to be vnderstood to speake only of such disputable questions as my Aduersary Widdrington himselfe alleageth o Ibidem num 26. for example sake out of Vasquez to wit whether there are any habits infused by God alone concerning which question Vasquez saith p Vbi supra disp 79 cap. 1. disp 86. that albeit Pope Clement the fift did determine expressely in a Councell held at Vienna that there opinion who held that there are such habits is more probable then the negatiue yet it was neuer either by that decree or any other of Pope or Councell determined to be more then probable in which respect he doth not condemne the contrarie doctrine for heresie notwithstanding that he and the farre greater part of learned men do hold the other to be certainely true 33. So as Vasquez is to be vnderstood to speake of questions and opinions altogether vndecided and not of such a doctrine as ours touching the Popes power to depose Princes which as I haue said hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures and confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Popes and Councells as well Generall as Prouinciall as to omit the other mentioned in my Supplement q Cap. 2. num 76. 77. it is euident by the decree of the famous Councell of Lateran which expressely ordained the practise of it in some cases and did therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue the verity of the doctrine as I will clearely prooue r Cap. 15. nu 6. 7. 8. hereafter in this Reply and withall shew the ridiculous absurditie of Widdringtons arguments and instances against the same yea and conuince him Å¿ Ibidem num 9. 11. 12. euen by his owne testimonie to be falne to vse his owne words into errour or heresie for not beleiuing this doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleiued and ordained to be practised 34. In the meane time he is to vnderstand that whereas to shew the probabilitie of his doctrine he bringeth many Authors partly in his Theologicall Disputation and partly in his Apologie I remit him to D. Schulckenius who hath answered particularly to euery one of them and proued clearely that diuerse of them doe make flatly against him and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else Heretikes as it appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowne Schismatikes who liuing in the time of the Emperors or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so as of all the Authours that he hath scraped together to make some shew of probability in his doctrine he hath no one cleare and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same 35. And therefore seeing that all his pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authoritie of the Authors and partly in the sufficiencie as he supposeth of his answeres to our grounds arguments and authorities which answeres I shall haue occasion to confute in this Treatise and to shew them to be so farre from probabilitie that they are wholly impertinent and sometimes ridiculous for their absurdity therefore I conclude that he cannot any way cleere or excuse himselfe from the note of great temerity and grosse errour yea flat heresie if he bee obstinate in impugning our doctrine grounded vpon such assured and solid foundations as I haue here signified and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter as also I will put thee in minde good Reader oftentimes by the way to note how probably or rather to say truely how absurdly he argueth and answereth to the end thou maiest the better iudge how dangerous it will be for thee to venter thy soule vpon his pretence of probability which is no other but such as any heretike may haue for his doctrine 36. For all Heretikes doe thinke themselues and their followes as good and sufficient Doctors to make an opinion probable as he either is or esteemeth his Authors to be and they neuer want Scriptures and Fathers that seeme to them to confirme their opinions and doe make as probable answers to our obiections out of Scriptures and Fathers as hee doth and many times much more probable then he yea and they may either with his arguments and instances or other as probable as they impugne the authoritie of any decree of a General Councel be it neuer so expresse against them saying that the fathers who made it followed but a probable opinion and so might erre as you shal heare t Infra chap. 13. num 1. he answereth to the decree of the Councell of Lateran 37. And so you see that if is pretended probability be admitted against the common doctrine practise and decrees of the Church any heretike will not onely easily defend but also establish his heresie and any point of Catholike faith may easily be called in question made only probable and consequently doubtfull obnoxious to error and to be reiected by any man that list to embrace the contrary which truely I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether it bee not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all Heresie and Atheisme 38. This is my Aduersaries fourth admonition the substance whereof although I could haue comprised in few lines yet I thought good to set it downe entirely word by word as it lieth to the end the Reader may more plainely perceiue his fraudulent vncharitable and insufficient proceeding therein And first he declareth what is requisite to a probable argument Secondly he affirmeth that Vasquez doctrine which I related in my Theologicall Disputation for following of probable opinions is to be vnderstood to speak only of questions opinions altogether vndecided not of such a doctrine as theirs is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which hath beene taught by the learnedst men
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
temporall Iurisdiction which is proper only to a temporall Prince and not to obserue due order but to make a confusion betwixt sword and sword betwixt the spirituall and temporall power which temporall power is only in spirituall corrections and not in temporall punishments subiect to the constraint of the temporall power 28 And therefore well said our most learned Countryman Alexander of Hales t 3. part q. 40. memb 5. q. 4. cited by me before that the subiection of Kings and Emperours to the Pope is in spirituall not corporall punishment according as it is said 2a. q. 7. that it belongeth to Kings to exercise corporall punishment and to Priests to vse spirituall correction Wherevpon S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperour Arcadius and did forbid him to enter into the Church For as an earthly Iudge not without cause beareth the sword as it is said Rom 13. so Priests doe not without cause receiue the keyes of the Church he beareth the sword to the punishment of malefactors and commendation of the good these haue keyes to the excluding of excommunicated persons and reconciling of them who are penitent Expound therefore A King is to be punished only by God that is with materiall punishment and againe A King hath no man to iudge his doings that is to inflict corporall punishment and a little beneath A King saith Alexander doth excell 1. Pet 2. true it is in his order to wit to inflict corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but only God what can be spoken more plainly 29 And by this you easily see the weaknes of D. Schulckenius his argument and how cunningly with generall and ambiguous words he would delude his Reader A temporall Prince saith he ought to refer publike peace to the eternall peace and folâ—estie of him selfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And what then And as hee ought to subiect temporall peace to eternall peace so he ought to subiect his temporall power to the spirituall power But how in what manner in what causes in what punishments temporall power ought to bee subiect to spirituall power D. Schulc cunningly concealeth Temporall power to be subiect to spirituall if wee will speake properly and in abstracto doth signifie that a temporall Prince is in all temporall affaires subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastors And if by those generall words D. Schulckenius meaneth this he falleth into the Canonists opinion whose doctrine in this point learned Victoria u in Relect. 1. de potest Eccles num 2. 3. is not afraid to condemn as manifestly false and who being poore themselues in learning and riches to flatter the Pope gaue him this direct power and dominion in temporalls For the truth is that temporall Princes in temporall affaires are not subiect to any besides God alone which is the receiued doctrine of the ancient Fathers The sense therefore of that proposition must be that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in temporalls subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope But what then wherefore he ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power c. Still you see he speaketh ambiguously and in generall words the sense whereof if hee had declared you would presently haue perceiued the weaknesse of his argument for if he meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed in spiritualls and in things belonging to Christian Religion and corrected with spirituall punishments by the Pope this I easily grant him and so he proueth nothing against me but if hee meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed by the Pope in temporalls and corrected by him with temporall punishments this consequence I vtterly denie for this were to confound all good order and to vsurpe temporall Iurisdiction as I declared before And thus much concerning Card Bellarmines first argument my answer and D. Schulckenius his Reply to the same Chap. 6. Wherein is examined the second argugument taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church 1. THe second argument which Card Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit one Church Rom 12. 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected and one dependeth on the other but it can not rightly be said that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spirituall and are subiect to them 2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered before b Cap. 2. that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes being diuerse waies considered doe make two totall and not onely one totall body or common-wealth For as they are referred to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pastour to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals they make one totall body or common-wealth to wit the Catholike Church which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals as all members are subiect to the head they make another body or common-wealth to wit earthly kingdomes as before I declared more at large And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false 3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof and to shew most plainely that not onely his Maior proposition as I haue prooued before but also his Minor is apparantly false I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected either immediately or mediately to the head vpon whom they all depend yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other there is no man so ignorant that will affirme for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other nor one arme vpon the other nor one shoulder vpon the other but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues or to other members to which they adhere May it not I pray you by the same manner of arguing and by the very same argument be concluded thus The armes or euery man are members of one body but in euery bodie the members are connected and depending one vpon the other but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right and is subiect vnto it Who would not skorn such foolish arguments 4. To this answer Card. Bellarmine c In Tract contra Bâ—rcl
There is saith he i 3. Par. q. 34. memb 2. ar 3. an authority to command and an authority to beckon in the authority to command it doth follow he doth that thing by whose authority it is done but in the authority to beckon this doth not follow The authoritie to command wicked men to be slaine is in the Emperour but the authoritie to beckon is in the Pope and Priests And this beckoning as hath beene sayd is a preaching of the Law of God and an exhorting that Princes will obey the Law of God Wherupon S. Bernard sheweth how both the materiall and spirituall sword are the Churches and doe belong to the Church not for as much as concerneth vse or command but for as much as concerneth beckoning whereupon he speaketh in this manner to Eugenius hee that denieth the materiall sword to be thine seemeth to me not to regard sufficiently the word of our Lord saying Returne thy sword into thy scabard and so foorth as it followeth in S. Bernard 19. Wherefore according to S. Bernard the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall not absolutely but in some sort to be beckoned but not to bee vsed or commanded as beckoning is distinguished from command by the Priest as he is a Priest And therefore that Glosse which D. Schulckenius maketh of those words at the becke indeede of the Priest that is saith he with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperor is verie vntrue expresly against S. Bernards words both because the Emperour hath power to command the souldier to vse the materiall sword but the Priest according to S. Bernard hath onely power to beckon but not to command the vse thereof and also because if the Souldier will not vse the materiall sword at the Emperours command the Emperour as Emperour may vse it himselfe and with his owne hand which the Priest as Priest or which is all one the Ecclesiasticall power according to S. Bernard cannot doe and moreouer because the Emperour as Emperour may compell the souldier with temporall punishments to vse the materiall sword and not onely depriue him of his power and right to vse the same but also of his temporall life which the Priest as Priest or the Ecclesiastical power cannot doe 20. And therefore who would not maruaile to see D. Schulckenius so boldly and in such publike writings to affirme That the question is not whether the spirituall Prince hath dominion right or power to vse the materiall sword but onely whether the sword be vnder the sword and whether the temporall power bee subiect to the spirituall And whereas Widdrington saith he in this place confesseth that the Church hath power to command or forbid in time of necessitie the vse of the materiall sword from thence we doe gather that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power which onely Card. Bellarmine in that his second argument did intend Wherefore Widdrington doth seeme to decline of set purpose the principall question For as wee haue often said the question is not concerning the dominion or vse of the materiall sword but concerning the power to direct it and concerning the subiection of the materiall sword to the spirituall But these in the option of S. Bernard are most manifest And for as much as appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword wee assent altogether to S. Bernard that it doth not beseeme Ecclesiasticall men to vse the materiall sword but onely the spirituall and thus much onely those words of our Sauiour doe signifie Put vp thy sword into thy scabbard and those of S. Bernard Why doest thou againe attempt to vse the sword which once thou wast commanded to put into the scabbard For heere it is not meant of the Law of God by which Ecclesiasticall men are absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword seeing that it is manifest that in some cases and especially in defence of themselues and of their Countrey this is lawfull but of the command of God by which Cleargie men are instructed and taught that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall but with the spirituall sword Thus D. Schulckenius 21. But it is strange to see how farre affection will carry the pens of learned men In very truth I should neuer haue imagined that D. Schulckenius or any other learned man who hath read my Apologie would euer haue beene so bold as to affirme That the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is not whether the Pope hath power to vse the materiall sword but onely whether the sword be vnder the sword and the temporall power subiect to the command and prohibition of the spispirituall power and that this only was intended by Card. Bellarmine in his second argument For first concerning the question betwixt mee and Card. Bellarmine it is euident that I haue oftentimes declared in my Apologie and D. Schulckenius also setteth downe my words that the true state of the question betwixt mee and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning the Popes power to command but to dispose of temporalls nor whether the sword be in any manner whatsoeuer vnder the sword or the temporal power in any sort subiect to the spirituall but in what manner the sword is vnder the sword and after what sort the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall For I haue often granted that the spirituall power or the Pope as Pope may command temporalls and the vse of the materiall sword and punish disobedient Princes with Ecclesiacall censures but what which I vtterly denied was that the spirituall power or the Pope as Pope may dispose of temporalls vse the materiall sword or punish disobedient Princes by taking away their liues kingdomes or goods 22. Secondly it is also manifest that Card. Bellarmine in his second argument did not onely intend to proue that the temporal power is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power as D. Schulckenius affirmeth but also that the spirituall power may vse and dispose of temporalls depose temporal Princes and institute others and constraine or punish with temporall punishments For marke I pray you his second argument In the first part thereof he argueth thus The power to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently of the materiall sword which is a temporall thing is necessary to the spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment fauour Heretickes and overthrow Religion therefore the Church hath also this power And yet D. Schulckenius doth not blush to affirme that Card. Bellarmine in his second argument did onely intend to proue that the temporall power is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power And in the second part of his argument hee concludeth thus Therefore much more the spirituall common-wealth hath power to command the temporall common-wealth which is subiect vnto her and
innocencie by answering all his obiections and by clearing my selfe of all those imputations which hee hath falsly laid to my charge and if in defending my selfe I lay open his fraude and ignorance and returne his slanders backe vpon himselfe I ought not therefore to be taxed of calumniation seeing that to detect the slanders of the Aduersarie is not d Cap. 5. Apologiae to vse Card. Bellarmines owne words to be accounted a defaming Now to draw neere vnto the matter 4. Before my Aduersarie come to examine my Answere to his arguments he thinketh it not amisse to say somewhat concerning me the matter which I handle and the manner how I proceede therein First then touching me he affirmeth e In his Preface num 3. that whereas I call my selfe by the name of Widdrington it is well knowne to many that M. Roger Widdrington vnder whose shaddow I shroude my selfe is farre different from me in qualitie habit and profession And albeit f Num. 3. he is not ignorant what my true name and qualitie is yet he forbeareth to declare it for iust respects and will only say of me for the present that whereas our Aduersaries haue heretofore leuied and Prest many souldiers of their owne profession to maintaine their quarrells against vs they haue now in this late quarrell of the oath Prest one of ours I meane saith he this Authour who so much presumeth of his owne skill and strength that albeit the prouerbe saith Ne Hercules contra duos yet he feareth not to encounter tenne at once yea hopeth as it seemeth to wrest the club out of Hercules his hand and to beate him with his owne weapon For he taketh vpon him to ouerthrow Card. Bellarmine with his owne arguments to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions c. 5. But first whether Roger Widdrington be the true or supposed the sole or ioint Authour of that Disputation it little auaileth to the matter which is now in controuersie and when my Aduersarie shall name more plainely that person whom he forbearing as he saith to name yet cunningly nameth I doubt not but that hee will not be afraid to answere him more fully neither will all my Aduersaries clamours and threatnings discourage him from defending the truth his Prince and Countrey for the loue wherof not for any hope of temporall lucre or preferment or for to shew his wit as my Aduersary falsly affirmeth he will not be ashamed to be Prest on to write against Mr. Fitzherbert or any other such like Authour who liuing in other Countries and out of danger to loose any thing but rather in hope to obtaine preferment by their writings would presse English Catholikes to defend with danger of loosing all they haue and of incurring his Maiesties high displeasuer that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith which the State of France hath accounted scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious In the meane time let this suffice that he is a childe of the Catholike Romane Church and as good a Catholike if not better then Mr. Fitzherbert is if we will dulie consider the true nature and definition of a Catholike and that he is no true Catholike who with true Catholike and supernaturall faith beleeueth doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions and which consequently are subiect to errour to which true Catholike faith cannot in any wise be exposed 6. Secondly it is vntrue that I doe presume so much of my owne skill and strength that I dare aduenture to wrest out the club of Hercules his hand as my Aduersarie affirmeth or to encounter vpon equall tearmes with Card. Bellarmine or any one of those learned writers whom I named in my Disputation accounting my selfe to be farre inferior to euery one of them in skill and strength only excepting this my Aduersarie whose skill and strength I doe not greatly feare it being well knowne of what sufficiencie he is and that his skill in Philosophie or Schoole Diuinitie is not great although he hath prettie skill in making vse of other mens labours and answering in English what other men haue before replied in Latine but if Hercules will leaue his club and fight with a bulrush it is no great maistrie for a weaker man to withstand him if Card. Bellarmine insteed of the expresse words of holy Scripture and the true meaning thereof so declared to be by the ancient Fathers or the vniuersall Church or vndoubted definitions of Generall Councels or necessarie inferences deducted from them which are the only weapons wherewith Catholike doctrine can be conuinced will flie to ouer wrested similitudes false or at the most probable suppositions doubtfull and vncertaine collections to proue an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith as he and the rest who follow him in this controuersie for the Popes power to depose Princes haue done it is an easie matter for one who hath lesse skill and strength then they haue to withstand them yea and to vanquish them and a hundred such others being so weakely armed 7. And therefore very false and friuolous is that which my Aduersarie affirmeth g Num 4. and 5. that Widdrington for so still I will call my selfe taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such art and sleight that whiles he fighteth against the Church he pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authority yet he dedicateth his booke to the Pope laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did But how vainely he laboureth in all this he may easily see if he call to minde what he hath learned in the Catholike Chucrch to wit how inexpugnable is the rocke and seate of Peter which the proud gates of hell cannot ouercome For I doe not batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church whom I reuerence and loue as my deare mother and to whose Censure I euer haue and do also now most humbly submit my selfe and all my writings but the priuate opinions of some few Catholikes especially Iesuites who will needes enforce vpon the Christian world doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of supernaturall faith which onely is the fortresse of the Catholike Church Neither doe I vndermine that immoueable rocke of S. Peter whereon Christ hath built his Church but those scandalous seditious damnable and pernitious positions for so the State of France doth call them of murthering Princes and thrusting them out contrarie to the rules of law and reason of the lawfull possession of their kingdomes by an authority which is only doubfull and questionable Neither do I impugne that authoritie of the Pope which is certainely knowne to be granted him by Christ but that new doctrine of some few writers
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
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
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
mysticall bodie of Christ and the spirituall Kingdome of Christ are altogether the same of which common-wealth Kings with Laikes Bishops with Clerks are parts as oftentimes hath beene sayd In which Christian com-wealth and mysticall body and Kingdome of Christ all things are so well disposed and ordered that temporall things doe serue spirituall and ciuill power is subiect to Ecclesiasticall which conclusion my Aduersarie Widdrington hath many waies attempted to ouerthrow but he was not able And he was not able not onely to ouerthrow the conclusion but also he hath not beene able to weaken at all with any probable answer the first argument which Card. Bellarmine brought to prooue this conclusion which the Readers will easily perceiue if without perturbation of minde they will consider that which hath beene sayd by vs. 24 But this Reply of D. Schulckenius is as fraudulent and insufficient as the former for in effect it is only a repetition of his former Reply to which I haue already answered besides some fraudulent dealing which he hath vsed herein And first it is very true that I granted the antecedent proposition of this second Reply of Card. Bellarmine but that all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist in the antecedent proposition or assumption as D. Schulckenius affirmeth is very vntrue and I wonder that D. Schulckenius is not ashamed with such boldnesse to affirme the same The Antecedent proposition was that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporal gouernment if it hurt the spirituall good not onely of his owne Subiects but also of the Subiects of other Christian Princes and this proposition I did willingly grant him but the force of his argument did not consist only in this antecedent proposition as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth but in the consequence which hee inferred from this antecedent proposition or if wee will reduce his argument to a syllogisticall forme in his Minor proposition or assumption which was this but of this to wit that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment in the case aforesaid no other reason can be giuen but that both powers are members of the same body and one power or body subiect to the other And this consequence assumption or Minor proposition wherein the whole force of his argument did consist I vtterly denyed and I alledged as you haue seene an other plaine and perspicuous reason why a Christian Prince in the case aforesaid is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment to wit not for that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or for that they make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power but for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are parts and members not onely of the temporall but also of the spiritual common-wealth for which cause a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it is hurtfull to the spirituall good of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof he is a true part and member as I declared before 25. Secondly it is very vntrue that I doe any waie contradict my selfe as D. Schulckenius affirmeth first in denying that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them are parts of one and the selfe-same Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ and afterwards in granting that temporall Kings and their subiects are members of the same spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For these propositions temporall power is not per se subiect to spirituall power and temporall Princes are subiect to spirituall power are not repugnant or contradictorie one to the other as neither these propositions are contradictory Temporall power and spirituall power are not parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and temporall Princes are parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For contradiction according to Aristotle n Lib. 1. de Interp. cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the same thing and in the same manner But there is no man so ignorant that will affirme that the same thing and in the same manner is affirmed and denied in the aforesaid propositions for the subiect of the first propositions is temporall power in abstracto and it is taken formally and in the second propositions it is temporall power in concreto and it is taken onely materially and hath this sense that temporall Princes who haue both temporall power and also spirituall subiection are indeed subiect to the spirituall power and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power but onely materially who haue temporall power but formally as they haue spiritual subiection But D. Schulckenius doth manifestly contradict himselfe as I plainely shewed before o Cap. 2. first affirming That the Church of Christ is compounded of temporall and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers as he himselfe also confesseth and afterwards in denying that it is compounded of temporall or ciuill power which is formally ciuill 26. But marke now good Reader what fraude D. Schulckenius vseth in prouing that I doe manifestly contradict my selfe He would seeme to his Reader to proue that I affirme and deny one and the selfe same thing for this he taketh vpon him to proue and yet he proueth nothing else but that which I haue alwaies affirmed and neuer denied to wit that Christian Kings and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to the spirituall power thereof but the contradiction which hee pretended to proue he doth not proue at all nor make any shew of proofe thereof to wit that it is all one to say that Christian Princes and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to her spirituall power which I alwaies granted and that the temporall and spirituall power doe compound the Church or that the temporall power it selfe is per se subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which I euer denied and out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds haue cleerely proued the contrary and haue plainely shewed that temporall power doth only compound a temporall or ciuill body or common-wealth whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius doth heere expresly affirme and that the Church of Christ his mysticall body and spirituall Kingdome or Christian common-wealth taking the Christian common-wealth for the Church onely and not for the Christian world as it containeth temporall and spirituall power is compounded onely of spirituall and not of temporall power In which Church of Christ and also Christian world all things are so well ordered and disposed that temporall things ought by the intention of good Christians to serue spirituall things and temporall Princes although in spiritualls they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church yet in temporalls or as they haue temporall power they are not subiect but supreame and consequently the
punishments not onely by the way of command but also of coercion and constraint that is to punish them actually whether they will or no with spirituall punishments when they shall refuse to obey his iust command for that this manner of punishing by way of coercion doth not exceede the limits of the spirituall coerciue power 10. Now if my Aduersaries demand or mee why the spirituall power may of her selfe command temporall actions and yet neither directly nor indirectly that is neither for temporall nor spirituall good exercise temporall actions may command ciuill punishments when they are necessarie to the end of the spirituall power and yet neither directly nor indirectly punish actually with ciuill punishments without the concurrance of the spirituall power I answer them by their owne similitude which pleaseth them so much for the same reason that the soule hath power of her selfe to command bodily actions and yet neither directly nor indirectly that is neither for the good of the body nor of the soule to doe of her selfe alone any bodily action hath power to command bodily punishments and yet of her selfe hath not power to inflict any bodily punishment without the concurrance of the bodie it selfe And thus you see that this similitude of which Card. Bellarmine and his followers doe make so great account is no fit similitude to prooue their doctrine but rather to confirme ours and that from this similitude no probable argument can be drawen to prooue that the spirituall Pastour hath power either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals to depose temporall Princes or to punish temporally by way of coercion or constraint 11. But fourthly although the temporall and spirituall power were aptly compared by Card. Bellarmine to the bodie and soule yet it would prooue two things more then he as I suppose would willingly admit The first is that the temporall power can exercise no temporall action without the concurrance and assistance of the spirituall power as the body can doe no corporall action vnlesse the soule also as an efficient cause thereof doe concurre thereunto For this is a cleere and approoued principle in philosophie that the soule is cause of all motions in the body according to that common definition or description of the soule assigned by Aristotle g 2. De Anima tex 24. Animaid est quo vinimus sentimus mouemur intelligimus primò The soule is that whereby we first or principally liue and haue sense and are mooued and doe vnderstand 12. The second is that the spirituall power may command or forbid the ciuill power to exercise ciuill actions not onely when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the spirituall power which is the health of the soule but also when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the temporall power which is temporall peace as the soule hath power to command or forbid the bodie to exercise bodily actions as to see heare speake c. not onely when they are necessary or hurtfull to the end and good of the soule which is spirituall life and health but also when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the good of the body which is bodily health and life And therefore Card. Bellarmine declaring this similitude of the spirit and flesh doth only affirme that the spirit doth command the flesh when her actions are hurtfull to the end of the spirit but cunningly omitteth that the spirit also dorh command the flesh when her actions are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the flesh least the Reader should presently perceiue therby the disparity of this similitude or else from thence inferre that in the same manner the spirituall power may command the temporall power not onely in order to spirituall good but also in order to temporall good which is the Canonist doctrine and which Card. Bellarmine doth at large impugne 13. Lastly in what manner S. Gregory Nazianzene did compare the temporall and spirituall power or rather temporall and spirituall Princes to the bodie and soule I haue sufficiently declared before h Cap. 3. to wit not in the manner of their vnion or subiection but onely in nobility and in that temporall Princes are in as excellent and worthy manner subiect to temporall Princes as spirituall things are more excellent and worthy then temporall So that neither from the authority of S. Gregorie Nazianzene nor from the similitude it selfe of the bodie and soule as it is declared and vrged by Card Bellarmine can it with any probabilitie be gathered that the spirituall power can of her selfe exercise any temporall action belonging to the ciuill power without the concurrance of the ciuill power although it be necessarie to the end of the spirituall power as the soule cannot of her selfe without the concurrance of the bodie exercise any bodily action although it be necessarie to the end not onely of the body but also of the soule And therefore I maruell that Card. Bellarmine could bee so much ouerseene as to vrge and repeat so often this similitude of the soule and body to prooue the Popes power to depose and to dispose of all temporals which is so flat against him and which if it were a fit similitude doth rather confirme the doctrine of the Canonists whom Card. Bellarmine taketh vpon him to confute then his owne opinon But the truth is that it confirmeth neither for that as I declared before i Cap. 2.3 the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth are not parts compounding one totall Body or Common-wealth as the bodie and soule doe compound a perfect man Chap 9. Wherein the fift argument to proue the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall taken from the authoritie of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the eight is examined 1. THe fift argument which Car. Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Râ—m Pont. c. 7. to proue the subiection of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is taken from the authoritie of S. Bernard Lib. 4. de considerat and Pope Boniface the eight in the Extrauagant Vnam Sanctam who doth imitate saith Card. Bellarmine S. Bernards words The words of S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius are these Why dost thou againe attempt to vsurpe or vse b Vsurpare the sword which once thou wast commanded to put vp into the scabbard which neuerthelesse hee that denieth to be thine doth seeme to me not sufficiently to haue considered the speech of our Lord saying Returne thy sword into the scabbard Therefore it is also thine to be drawne forth perchance at thy becke c Nutu tuo or direction although not with thy hand Otherwise if also it doth in no maner appertaine to thee when the Apostles said Behold to swords heere our Lord had not answered It is enough but it is too much Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword doe belong to the Church but the materiall is indeed to bee exercised or drawne
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
Church hath necessitie but the vse it selfe of the sword doth immediately depend vpon the Emperors command to whose command the souldiers in vsing the temporall sword are immediately subiect 7 But what if the Emperour shall refuse to vse the temporall sword at the Popes becke or direction Hath therefore the Pope according to S. Bernards opinion power to draw it forth himselfe or can the Emperour by the Popes authoritie be depriued of the dominion thereof No truly But because he doth not keepe that promise which he hath giuen to the Church and contrarie to the law of God hee doth not relieue the necessities of the Church the Church hath power to punish him with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall punishments as I haue often said Wherefore these words of S. Bernard doe nothing fauour the Popes temporall power or his power to vse the temporall sword but rather do directly concontradict it And this very answer hath Ioannes Parisiensis * in Tract de potest Regia Papali cap. 1â— in expresse words c. Thus I answered in my Apologie 8 Now you shall see how well D. Schulckenius replyeth to this my answer I answer saith he f Pag. 386. ad num 196. that which my Aduersarie Widdrington first doth say that both the swords doe belong to the Church hee saith well but that which hee addeth that both the swords are subiect to the Church he saith not well For the spirituall sword to bee subiect to the Church doth signifie no other thing then that the Popes power is subiect to the Church which is manifestly false whereas contrariwise it is to bee said that the Church is subiect to the spirituall sword or to the power of the Pope vnlesse perchance Widdrington be of opinion that the Sheepheard is subiect to his sheepe and not the sheepe to the Sheepheard 9 Marke now good Reader the cunning not to say fraudulent proceeding of this man Hitherto he hath as you haue seene taken the Church the Christian common-wealth the mysticall bodie or spirituall kingdom of Christ to be all one and to be one totall bodie consisting both of temporall and spirituall power and compareth hir to a man compounded of bodie and soule And may it not I pray you be rightly said that all the powers both of bodie and soule are subiect to man and why then may it not also be rightly said that the spirituall sword or power is subiect to the Church But now forsooth this Doctor that hee might take an occasion to charge me with a manifest falshood will not take the Church as hee tooke it before for the whole mysticall bodie of Christ which totall bodie includeth both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof in which sense I did take the Church when I affirmed that not onely the spirituall but also the temporall sword is in some sort subiect to the Church but hee will take the Church for one part onely of this mysticall bodie to wit for all the members of the Church besides the Pope in which sense the Church is indeed sometimes taken as when the Church is compared with the Pope and it is said that the Pope is head of the Church but when the Church is compared with Christ and is said to be the mysticall bodie and spirituall kingdome of Christ the Church doth include both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof who iointly make one totall bodie whereof Christ is the head And the very like is seene in the bodie of man for when the bodie is compared with the head the bodie doth not include the head but when the bodie is compared with the soule said to be subiect to the soule that of the bodie soule is made one man then the bodie doth also include the head 10. Wherefore taking the Church as it doth signifie the whole mysticall body of Christ in which sense both Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also S. Bernard in this very place doe take it when they affirme that the materiall sword is to be drawne foorth for the Church and the spirituall by the Church it is truly said that the spirituall sword is subiect to the Church Neither doth this signifie that the Popes spirituall power is subiect to the Church for now the Church is taken as it excludeth the Pope but rather that all spirituall power which is in any member of the Church is subiect to the whole body of the Church and consequently to the Pope in whom all the power of the Church according to Cardinall Bellarmines opinion doth reside And would not D. Schulckenius thinke that I did cauill if I should say of him as hee saith of mee that he spake not rightly when in this very place hee affirmeth that Christ gaue to the Church both the swords For the spirituall sword to be giuen to the Church doth signifie no other thing to vse his owne words then that the Popes power was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to the Church which in Card. Bellarmines opinion is not only manifestly false but also an erroneous doctrine 11. I omit now that the ancient Doctours of Paris who hould that the whole body of the Church taken collectiue and not including the Pope which a generall Councell lawfully assembled doth represent is superiour to the Pope would not thinke to speake any falshood at all if they should say that Christ gaue all the power which the Pope hath also to the Church and that the Popes power is subiect to the Church and that it doth not therefore follow that the Pastour is subiect to the sheepe or the superiour to the inferiour but rather contrariwise But in very truth this was not my meaning when I affirmed that both swords are in some sort subiect to the Church for by the name of Church I vnderstood also the Pope as I declared before 12. Secondly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the ciuill power is not per se subiect to the Ecclesiasticall he doth corrupt the text of S. Bernard and of Pope Boniface the eight For when S. Bernard saith that the materiall sword is the Popes and is to bee drawne forth at his becke and direction he clearely confesseth that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword which Pope Boniface doth declare more plainely when he saith that the sword must be vnder the sword and temporall authoritie subiect to spirituall power 13. But how shamefully D. Schulckenius accuseth me of corrupting the text of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface let the Reader iudge seeing that I neither add nor diminish nor alter any one word of their text but doe say the very same words which they doe say For S. Bernard doth say that the materiall sword is the Popes and doth belong to the Pope but with this limitation in some sort to bee drawne foorth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the becke or direction of 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
of Princes be in this sense hereticall as in very deed it is And therfore all those Priests who then were Prisoners in Newgate and the Gate-house and now are in Wisbeech being examined by his Maiestses Commissioners vpon certaine articles and did directly answere to the questions which were propounded did agree in this that it was directly and absolutely murther for any man to take away the life of his Maiesty and that the Church could not define it to be lawfull for any man to kill his Maiesty although for the point of deposing some of them answered otherwise some others declined the question and many of them did insinuate that as yet this point touching the Popes power to dedose Princes is not defined by the Church 103 And although his Maiesty doth alleage much more Scripture to condemn the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then I doe for the condemnation of violent attempts against their persons yet it cannot be denied both that his Maiesty might haue brought more plaine and pregnant places against the doctrine of murthering Princes if he had thought it needefull and not supposed it to be a manifest vntruth and condemned by the common coesent also of Catholikes and also that all those places which his Maiesty bringeth to proue that Subiects owe ciuill obedience to temporall Princes and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall power to depriue Princes of their temporall kingdomes doe more forcibly conclude against violent attempts against their sacred persons and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power to murther kill or depriue them of their liues which bloody punishments Ecclesiasticall mildnes doth so much abhorre 104 Neither doe I take the word murthered in that clause of the oath as it doth formally signifie an vnlawfull act and a mortall sinne and in that sense apply the precept Thou shalt not kill to this clause of the oath as my Aduersary would perswade the Reader but I take murthered in that clause as it doth denote materially the killing of Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope And I affirme that the killing of such Princes is directly and absolutely a mortall sinne and is that murther or killing which is forbidden by the law of God and nature reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and especially in those two places which the Author of the English Dialogue whose obiection against that clause of the oath I tooke vpon mee to answere did alleadge The first place 1 Reg. 26. Kill him not for who shall extend his hand against the Lords annointed and be innocent doth more particularly belong to Princes The second place Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill is common also to priuate men and therefore much more to be ayplyed to the killing of Princes 105. Neither is it necessary as I obserued in my Appendix y part 2. sec 5. nu 4. against Suarez to make that position contained in the Oath to be hereticall and repugnant to Gods commandement that the Scripture should haue added Thou shalt not kill Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope It is sufficient that all killing both of priuate men and much more also of temporall Princes who haue in their handes the materiall sword it selfe and supreme power to kill or saue is vnlawfull and forbidden by this precept which is not warrantable either by other places of holy Scripture or declared by the Church to bee lawfull and to haue sufficient warrant Now it is manifest that neither the Church nor any one Catholike Doctour euer taught that the Popes sentence of excommunication or depriuation although wee should grant that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes by way of sentence doth giue sufficient warrant or authority to Subiects to kill their Prince for that the Popes sentence of depriuation doth at the most by the consent of all Catholicks depriue a Prince of his right to reigne but not of his corporall life or of his right to liue And thus much concerning the antecedent proposition 106 Lastly to say something also concerning the consequent although as you haue seene I do vtterly deny that to abiure this doctrine and position as hereticall That Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other it is necessary by vertue of the forme of words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification and by force of the coniunction disiunctiue or that both parts of the disiunction bee abiured as hereticall neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant that by vertue of the matter both parts of that disiunctiue proposition may bee truely abiured as hereticall if wee take the word hereticall as by many learned Catholickes it is taken in a true proper and vsuall signification For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue out of Alphonsus de Castro z Lib 1. aduershaereses cap 8. Didaecus Couerruuias a Lib. 4. variaâ— resolut cap. 14. and others that although the Catholike Church can determine of heresie yet an assertion is not therefore heresie because the Church hath defined it but because it is repugnant to Catholike faith or which is all one to that which is reuealed by God For the Church by her definition doth not make such a position to be heresie seeing that it would be heresie although she should not define it but the Church causeth this that by her censure she maketh knowne and manifest to vs that to bee heresie which before was not certainly knowne whether it might iustly be called heresie or no. 107. For the whole Church excluding Christ her principall head hath not power to make a new Ariicle of faith which neuerthelesse shee might doe if she could make an assertion to be hereticall But that the Church hath not power to make a new Article of faith it is conuinced by manifest reason For euery assertion is therefore called Catholike for that it is reuealed by God Seing therefore that diuine reuâ—lation doth not depend vpon the approbation or declaration of the Church the declaration of the Church doth not make that Catholike which is reuealed by God The Church therefore doth determine that this is reueaâ—ed by God but shee doth not make that which is reuealed by God to be true for if such a verity be called Catholike for that it is contained in holy Scriptures seeing that such a verity to bee contained in holy Scriptures doth not depend vpon any humane will but vpon God alone the Author of those Scriptures it is manifest by this reason that the Church can doe nothing at all that such a truth doth belong to faith For the holy Scriptures haue this of themselues that wee are bound to beleeue them in all things Wherefore the Church defining any thing to be of faith although she doth certainly define and cannot erre yet by her definition she doth not make that truth to bee Catholike faith For shee did therefore define that truth to be Catholike because that truth