Princes who in things temporal are supreme and subiect to none but God So also there be only two subiections and obediences answerable thereunto to wit spirituall and temporall So that if such a power or obedience be not spirituall it must of necessitie be temporall and with the same certaintie or probabilitie that one is perswaded such an authoritie not to be spirituall he must be perswaded that it is temporall That authoritie is spirituall and due onely to the Pope which Christ hath giuen to his Church and the spirituall Pastours thereof All other supreme authoritie is temporall and due only to temporall Princes And therefore if it be probable as in very deede it is and as you may see it in this Treatise clearely conuinced so to be that the Pope hath no authority giuen him by Christ to depose Princes it is consequently probable that the aforesaid authoritie if there be any such authoritie on earth to depose Princes is not spirituall but temporall and that therfore whosoeuer granteth it to the Pope doth giue to him that obedience which is due to temporall Princes and consequently he doth against the expresse command of Christ not render to God and Caesar that which is their due 3. Well then thus you see that if the Pope should challenge that obedience as due to him by the institution of Christ which Christ hath not giuen him and which consequently is due only to temporall Princes he should vsurpe that authority which he hath not in so doing he should transgresse the law of God and Nature and those subiects who should adhere to him and yeeld him that pretended spirituall obedience should also transgresse the law of Christ and be not only pretended but true Traitors both to God and their Prince in not acknowledging their Prince to be their true Soueraigne by yeelding that obedience which is due to him to an other and so by taking from him his supreme power or soueraingtie and giuing it to an other Prince which in very deed is to take the Diademe which doth signifie his supreme authoritie off from his head and place it vpon the head of an other 4. Now there is none of you as I suppose of so meane vnderstanding that can imagine that the Pope is so infallible in his opinion iudgement or any declaratiue command grounded thereon as that he can not possibly erre therein and challenge that authority as due to him by the institution of Christ which neuerthelesse Christ hath not giuen him but it belongeth only to temporall Princes This you may see by experience in Pope Boniface the eight who pretended that Philip the faire the most Christian KING of France was subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and declared them to be heretikes who should beleeue the contrarie and that he was a temporall Monarch of the Christians world and therefore that the kingdome of France by reason of the disobedience and rebellion of Philip their King was falne into the handes of the See Apostolike for which cause Pope Boniface was taxed by many learned Catholikes of great impudencie pride and arrogancie and his extrauagant Vnam Sanctam which he made to curbe the said King of France declaring that the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall and temporall power to spirituall authoritie was reuersed by Pope Clement the fift the next Successour but one to Pope Boniface who declared that by the definition and declaration of Pope Boniface in his extrauagant Vnam SanctaÌ„ no preiudice should arise to the King and kingdome of France and that by it neither the King kingdom or inhabitants of France should be more subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things should be vnderstood to be in the same state wherin they were before the said definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King Kingdome and Inhabitants of France The like temporall authoritie Pope Sixtus the fift if he had liued would also haue challenged for that as I haue been credibly informed by diuers Iesuites of good account who then liued at Rome hee did intend to suppresse Card. Bellarmines first Tome of Controuersies because he did not with the Canonists grant to the Pope this direct temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world 5 So that the onely controuersie now is whether the Pope hath de facto erred or no in declaring the oath of allegiance to be vnlawful and to containe in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation vpon this supposall that it is a point of Faith that the Pope hath authoritie giuen him by Christ to depose Princes which is the substance of the oath as Fa Suarez a Lib 6 Defens Fidei fere â—er totum acknowledgeth and the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee as M.r. Fitzherbert b In the end of his Preface in expresse words confesseth Now you may see if you please to reade that I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise that it is probable that the authoritie which the Pope claimeth to depose Princes is not true but vsurped not granted him by Christ but giuen him by men contrarie to those expresse words of CHRIST c Math. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God And therefore consider I pray you in what danger you stand of doing great iniury to your Soueraigne and committing flat treason against his Royall person and Crowne if you rashly and without due examination follow the Popes opinion iudgement or also declaratiue command grounded thereon who vnder pretence of demanding of you a profession of his spirituall authoritie and your spirituall obedience exacteth in very deede not spirituall allegiance but that obedience which is probably thought by many learned Catholikes to be a meere temporal allegiance and due onely to your temporall Prince 6 But obserue deare Countrimen a more manifest and dangerous gulfe into which for want of due consideration you may easily cast your selues For if once you grant that it is probable that it is a controuersie that it is a disputable question as in very deed it is and as I thinke very few of you who haue studied this question are perswaded to the contrarie that the right title power and authoritie which the Pope challengeth to depose Princes is no true title but pretended a meere temporall and not a true spirituall authoritie although I should grant you also for Disputation sake of which as yet I doe not dispute that it is also probable that the said title is good and that the Pope hath such an authoritie to depose Princes giuen him by Christ yet there is none of you so simple but if you will duely consider will presently perceiue that this title so long as it is in controuersie is titulus sinere a meere title which so long as it is disputable and debated on either side can neuer be put in practise by any man what opinion so euer he
And therefore I will easily grant that the Pope may exact if need require not only of the Romane Emperour but also of all other Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance this is that I vtterly deny neither will Card. Bellarmine or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus a man excellently learned and a Classicall Doctour that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes and to dispose of their temporall dominions Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctour of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient 1. THe third authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 7. and also in my Apologie b Num. 121. was of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike and as Trithemius relateth c In verbo Ioannes Parisiensis most learned in the holy Scriptures and who in the Vniuersitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Professour and left behind him many Disciples He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran which is now adaies so greatly vrged by our Aduersaries This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion that if a King should become an heretike and incorrigible and a contemner of Ecclesiasticall Censures the Pope may do somewhat with the people whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dignitie and be deposed by the people to wit he may excommunicate all those to whom it belongeth to depose the king who should obey him as their Soueraigne Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion that it belongeth not to the Pope to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall or which is all one to depriue them d Almainus de potest Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8. of their kingdomes by a definitiue sentence in such sort that after the sentence be published they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie For he affirmeth e De potest Regia Papali cap. 14. ad 20. that excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge For although saith he it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not power to doe this but by vsing those meanes which be giuen him by God which is by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle yet concerning the principall controuersie which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether it be hereticall erroneous or temerarious to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely as I haue now shewed contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Disputation 2 Marke now good Reader with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis saith he f Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num 4. is not for the contrarie opinion For although he giueth lesse to the Pope then he ought yet he giueth as much as sufficeth for our purpose For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope doe depose immediately by his sentence or that he may by his right withdraw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is and euer hath been whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence in such sort that after his sentence of depriuation be denounced they who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie are then no more Kings and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis blusheth not to affirme that it doth not appertaine to the present question whether the Pope may depose immediately by his sentence which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle For most certaine it is euen according to Card Bellarmines owne doctrine g in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. that the Pope can not withdraw discharge or absolue subiects from their obedience immediatly by his sentence vnles he haue authoritie to depriue immediately by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie for that authoritie in a Prince and obedience in subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect as the dignitie power or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour saith Suarez h in Defensione fides c. lib. 6. cap 3. nu 6. and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince and is not depriued of his Princely power is clearely repugnant saith Card Bellarmine i in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. p. 202. to the law of God and nature 3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods or dominions either of Kings or priuate men And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee affirmeth k De potest Regia Pap. cap 6. 7. that the Pope is not a Lord to whom the propertie of Church liuings doth belong but onely a dispencer of them but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer but a declarer of the law And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners all the goods of the faithfull yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated the Pope who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie but of all the faithfull as they are faithfull hath authoritie as he is generall informer of faith and manners in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull to ordaine them to be exposed as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās or other such like accident And this ordination of the Pope is only a
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo◠bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
Pope is said to be in possession of his right to depose Princes so Princes may be said to bee in possession of their right not to be deposed by the Pope and therefore in this cause is like or equall doubtfull or disputable as well for Princes right not to be deposed as for the Popes right to depose them and on the other side Princes are not onely in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope but also in quiet peaceable and lawfull possession of their Kingdomes and temporall Dominions which onely are properly said to be possessed in respect whereof this rule fauoureth onely Princes and not the Pope and therefore in this doubtfull and disputable case of the Popes power to depose Princes the state and condition of Princes who are in lawfull possession not onely of their right not to be deposed by the Pope but also of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they possesse is according to the aforesaid rule to be preferred 70. Moreouer that the Popes right power or authoritie to depose Princes may be said to be possessed if possession properly be of rights it is necessarie that hee exercise that power to depose Kings they knowing thereof and bearing it patiently and without contradiction as may clearely be gathered out of u Tract 2. de Instit disp 14. Molina and x Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub 11. Lessius And the reason is euident for otherwise if any man should challenge a right bee it good or bad and should exercise that pretended right the contrarie part contradicting he may neuerthelesse be said to be in lawfull possession of that right And so if temporall Lords should pretend to haue a spirituall Iurisdiction ouer temporall and spirituall persons and should exercise that pretended spirituall Iurisdiction ouer them they contradicting and excepting against the same they might neuerthelesse be said to be in possession of that spirituall Iurisdiction But Christian Kings from the time of Henry the fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that euer was deposed by the Pope vntill the time of Henry the fourth most Christian King of France who was the last King whom the Pope deposed haue euer resisted and contradicted this authoritie of the Pope to depose them And therefore although Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth challenged this authoritie to depose Kings yet they cannot be said to haue been for one yeare or one day in possession of that authoritie ouer Kings seeing that Kings haue euer gainsaid and contradicted it And although there should perchance haue beene some one or other Christian King who for some priuate or publicke respect hath not resisted the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced against him but rather yeelded thereunto yet this cannot be a sufficient warrant to preiudice his Successours or that the Pope may bee said to be in possession of his pretended authoritie to depose Kings in generall but at the most to depose that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the authoritie which the Pope claimed to depose him 71. Fourthly and lastly D. Schulckenius answereth that the aforesaid rule is to be vnderstood when the controuersie is betwixt two inferiour parties who are in suite and not betwixt the Iudge and the partie accused or if wee will apply it to the Iudge and the partie accused the Iudge is to be preferred before the partie accused but the Pope is Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes and therefore this rule saith he is in fauour of the Pope But how vnsound and insufficient is also this Reply of D. Schulckenius it is very apparant For First although the Pope be Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes in spirituall causes and punishments yet in temporall causes and punishments they haue no Iudge or Superiour besides God the supreme Iudge of all both Kings and Popes and therefore well said our learned Countreiman Alexander of Hales y 3 part q. 40. mem 5. q. 4. expound those words A King is to be punished by God alone with materiall punishment And againe A King hath no man who may iudge his facts to wit to inflict corporall punishment And againe A king doth excell as it is written 1. Pet. 2. it is true in his degree to wit to exercise corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but God alone 72. Yea rather contrariwise the Roman Emperors were in times past Iudges in temporall causes of all the Romane Empire and of euery member thereof both Cleargie and Laitie but the deposition of Kings is a temporall cause and punishment for what crime soeuer whether temporall or spirituall a King be deposed and therefore the controuersie about deposing Kings betwixt the Pope challenging to himselfe that authoritie and Kings who are supreme Iudges in temporalls denying it is not betwixt the Iudge and the party accused but at the least betwixt two equalls in temporall causes whereof the Pope who first challenged this power to make Kings no Kings is the plaintiffe and Kings who defend their ancient right and prerogatiue not to be deposed by the Pope are the defendant and so also that second rule of the Law Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. When 〈◊〉 is not cleare whether of the parties who are in suite haue right the defendant is to be preferred before the plaintiffe fauoureth Kings and not the Pope who only from the time of Gregorie the seuenth claimed this authoritie to make Kings no Kings 73. Secondly I doe not thinke that any Lawyer will affirme that if a Iudge who is onely knowne to haue authoritie in ciuill matters as ciuill is opposed to criminall should challenge a Iurisdiction in criminall causes and condemne a man to death before he shewed that hee had sufficient warrant from the Prince so to doe the partie condemned is bound to obey that Iudge or that the aforesaid rule In a like or doubtfull cause hee that hath possession it to be preferred should fauour the aforesaid Iudge and not the party condemned who is not onely in possession of his life but also hath right to defend his life vntill the Iudge shew sufficient warrant or it is otherwise publikely knowne that he hath authoritie to take it away Neither is it a sufficient warrant for the Iudge that it is knowne that he is a Iudge in ciuill matters vnlesse it be also knowne that he is a Iudge also in criminall causes as likewise it is not a sufficient warrant for the Pope to depriue Kings of their temporall kingdomes that it is cleare that he is a Iudge in all spirituall matters vnlesse also it be cleare as yet it is not that he is also a Iudge in temporall causes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coercion as without doubt are the taking away of temporall kingdomes for what crime soeuer they be taken away 74.
declaration of the law to which he may by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell the faithfull But in cases not of necessitie but of some speciall vtilitie or when it is not apparant that the goods of Lay-men doe helpe such vtilitie or necessitie the Pope hath not authoritie to compell any man but concerning this hee may giue indulgences for giuing aide to the faithfull and no other thing is granted him in my opinion Thus writeth Parisiensis wherefore in his opinion the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Lay-man of his goods or any part thereof euen in necessitie of faith and manners but onely to declare that he is bound by the law of God to giue such part of his goods as the necessitie of the Church shall require which if he neglect to doe the Pope hath no other authoritie to compell him therevnto then by Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the last punishments which the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can inflict 4 In the very like manner Parisiensis discourseth of the disposing of Kingdomes and of deposing temporall Princes as I before related out of him For first he affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose a King iuridically or which is all one to depriue him by a iuridicall sentence of his right to reigne and secondly that the people or temporall common-wealth may and in some exorbitant cases are bound to depose their Prince and so the Pope not by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation but by declaring what the people are by the law of God bound to doe and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compelling them therevnto may according to Parisiensis concurre to the deposing of a Prince by meanes of the people which if the people notwithstanding the Popes Censures neglect to doe the Pope hath no further power to depose him for that Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to him the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict 5 Wherefore two things are affirmed by Parisiensis the one that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes immediately by his sentence of their Princely power and this is that only which is in controuersie betwixt mee and Card Bellarmine the other that the people or temporall common-wealth haue that authoritie in some exorbitant cases and this is only a philosophicall question and wherewith I would neuer intermeddle as being impertinent to the question concerning the Popes authoritie to depriue him And although many Catholike Doctors doe agree with Parisiensis in this point yet many other learned Catholikes whom I cited in my Apologie l Num. 411. doe dissent from him herein to which opinion doe incline very many of the ancient Fathers who expounding those words of the King and Prophet m Psal 50. I haue sinned to thee alone doe affirme that Soueraigne Princes for that they are inferiour to God alone to wit in temporalls can be punished with temporall punishments by God alone And therefore D. Schulckenius may be greatly ashamed to affirme so boldly that Parisiensis doth not make for my opinion and that it doth not appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope may depose Princes immediately by his sentence or by meanes of the people seeing that the onely question betwixt vs is whether the Pope hath power to depriue Princes of their Royall power immediately by his sentence and not what authoritie the common-wealth hath to depriue them 6 But D. Schulckenius perceiuing that this his answer to the authoritie of Parisiensis was but a meere shift and euasion hath reserued but not in this place another answer whereby he imagined to cleane ouerthrow the authority of this famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine For hee beneath n Pag. 394. ad num 201. replying to the answer which I made to those words of S. Bernard vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentas c. wherof beneath o Part. 2. ca. 9. I will treate more at large in confirmation of which my answer I cited the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis D. Schulckenius writeth thus There is no great regard to bee had of the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis whatsoeuer he saith for that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and also in the 14. chapter of the same Treatise hee mingleth many errours The like answer but more biting maketh Fa Lessius in his Singleton It is to little purpose saith he p Pag. 29. what Ioannes Parisiensis doth say because he alledgeth very many other false citations and histories as being a Schismatike Another censure but more temperate Card. Bellarmine giueth of him in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers Ioannnes Parisiensis saith he q Pag. 380. of the Order of the Preachers was famous about the yeere 1296. Hee wrote vpon the foure bookes of the sentences and diuerse Quodlibets but especially of Kingly and Papall power and because it was his happe to liue in trouble sometimes by reason of the discord betweene Pope Boniface the eight and Philip the faire King of France and hee liued and taught at Paris hee seemeth to be more inclined towards the King then the Pope 5 But truely it is strange that men of such singular learning and religious profession should so rashly and without sufficient grounds be so transported as contrarie to the rules of Christian Charitie and Iustice to defame and slaunder learned and vertuous men and those especially who beeing dead cannot defend themselues For first it is an apparant and too too manifest slander which Fa Lessius speaking with all dutifull respect to his reuerence doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis was a Schismatike neither can he out of any approoued Authour or by any probable reason prooue any such thing and therfore what great account hee hath to make at the dreadfull day of iudgement for vniustly taking away as much as lieth in him the good name of so famous a man and in so fowle and hainous a crime as Schisme is I remit to the examination of his owne conscience Besides that Parisiensis mingleth many errours in the 14. chapter of his Kingly and Papall power as D. Schulckenius affirmeth and that he alledgeth many false citations and histories as Fa Lessius saith is also vntrue and it had beene fitting for them to haue alledged some one of them that thereby some credit might haue beene giuen them for the rest Vnlesse whatsoeuer is not agreeable to D. Schulckenius his doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine must bee accounted an errour and whatsoeuer Fa. Lessius hath not seeene or read must be esteemed a false citation or historie True it is that Parisiensis in that 14. chapter doth teach that the Pope cannot iudge of temporall causes but in regard of the sinne and that hee cannot depose Princes by his sentence and that the last punishment which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict are spirituall and Ecclesiasticall
against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
that the Pope hath no such authoritie Must the opinion of Card Bellarmine or of Suarez or of any other learned Catholike be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith All Catholikes doe confesse that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Christian King and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature and by the institution of Christ doth forbid but to absolue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication which being a spirituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect or by the sentence of depriuation this many learned Catholikes with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde or loose 16 True also it is that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church but these keyes are spirituall not temporall of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of temporall but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings as I haue often shewed neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegiance or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues libertie kingdomes or goods as by some Catholikes of these latter ages contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church they haue been violently wrested To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. I answer saith Ioannes Parisiensis according to S. Chrysostome Rabanus that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall to wit to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance 16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against those authorities which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation Now let any indifferent Reader iudge whether he hath sufficiently answered those authorities or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off and whether Mr. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly that D. Schulckenius to whom he cunningly also as you haue seene remitteth his English Reader for his answer to those authorities hath answered particularly to euerie one of them and prooued cleerely that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else heretikes as appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowen Schismatikes who liuing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauours of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so that of all the Authours that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same which how true it is or rather most cleerely false I remit to the consideration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader 17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius a learned and vertuous Catholike who expressely affirmeth that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no partly hee reiecteth partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers Grammarians Poets as Sigebert Valla Dante 's who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines and partly to repell his testimonie he falsely grossely and vnaduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to Posseuine who as you haue seene both in that and also other points of historie hath shamefully erred himselfe and neuerthelesse that which Trithemius affirmeth Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine and classicall Doctour of Paris who liued also in those daies confirmeth to be true whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all Albericus a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law for that hee deliuereth his opinion with submission is ready to recal it if it should prooue erroneous as euery good Catholike ought to doe he will haue to speake wauering and altogether doubtfull Ioannes Parisiensis a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point which I contend to prooue and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him without sufficient ground of many errours which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes The testimony of Mr. D. Barclay a famous learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike To M. Blackwell and those other English Priests he answereth nothing The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such particular circumstances that no man can misdoubt of them for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredible The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posseuines confession affirming that France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reieiecteth which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed And if this manner of answering authorities is to bee admitted who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer especially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie and to depresse their aduersaries and who shall seeme to make against them whether they be liuing or dead euen to the pit of hell appeaching them of heresie errour schisme and such like hainous crimes 18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apologie which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute whereof some of them doe expressely affirme that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall and not a temporall sword Others that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God and to bee punished with temporall punishments by God alone and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall Others that neither Childerike was deposed nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graecians
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
Rom. 12. wee being many are one body in Christ is examined 1. ANd to begin first with the vnion Card. Bellarmine bringeth two arguments to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power doe make one bodie or common-wealth among Christians The first is taken from the authoritie of S. Paul Rom 12. and 1 Cor 12. where hee affirmeth that wee being many are one body in Christ from whence Card Bellarmine concludeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont cap. 7. that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit the Church 2 To this argument I answered in my b Num 83. 89. 165. Apologie that the meaning of S. Paul in those places is that all Christians both Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they are by Baptisme regenerate in Christ doe truly properly and formally make one bodie one house one cittie one communitie or common-wealth to wit the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ which Card. Bellarmine defineth c Lib. 3. de Ecclesia cap 2. to be a companie of men vnited together by the profession of the same Christian faith and Communion of the same Sacraments vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastours and especially of one Romane Bishop Christ his Vicar in earth But S. Paul doth not say that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one onely bodie communitie or common-wealth and not also two or that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes not considered as Christians or regenerate in Christ by baptisme but as by their naturall birth or ciuil conuersation they are subiect to temporal Princes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe not also truely properly and formally make also another politike bodie another citie another communitie or common-wealth to wit the earthly Kingdomes of the Christian world 3. Wherefore it is not true that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes considered diuerse waies do not make diuerse kingdoms or common-wealths but one onely as Card. Bellarmine concludeth out of S. Paul for as by Baptisme they are regenerate in Christ and subiect in spirituals to Christ his vicegerent in earth they make one body or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ and this onely doth signifie S. Paul by those words we being many are one body in Christ but S. Paul doth not denie that all Christians as by their naturall birth or ciuill conuersation they are subiect to Secular Princes in temporall causes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe also truely properly and formally make another body or common-wealth which are the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world Cleargie men saith Card. Bellarmine himselfe d Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill common-wealth and againe e Ibid. cap. 30. if one saith he consider the companie of Lay-men not as they are Christians but as they are Citizens or after any other manner that companie cannot bee called the Church and consequently they must bee another common-wealth and therefore the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power or Clerkes or Laikes in whom the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe reside being considered diuerse waies doe not truely properly and formally make one only body but two distinct seuerall bodies or common-wealths although materially and accidentally vnited in that maner as I declared before f Cap. 1. nu 3. and presently will declare more at large 4. And whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that although the temporall and spirituall power doe make two partiall common-wealths yet they doe also make one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and to affirme the contrary is saith he against the Catholike faith hee doth heerein both speake contrarie to his owne principles and to that which hee knoweth to bee the Catholike faith and hee must also of necessitie fall into the Canonists opinion which he before g Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. a cap. 2. pretended to confute concerning the Popes spirituall and temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world For if the Church of Christ be one totall body or common-wealth compounded of Ecclesiastical and ciuill power as a man is compounded of soule and body for this is that similitude which so much pleaseth Card. Bellarmine and is therefore so often inculcated by him it must necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope in whom according to his other grounds all the power of the Church doth reside must haue truly properly and formally both temporall and Ecclesiasticall power as a man who is compounded of soule and bodie hath truely properly and formally in him both the soule and bodie and all the powers and faculties of them both And what else is this I pray you then to maintaine with the Canonists that the Pope as Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch and that hee hath truely properly and formally both ciuill and spirituall authority And yet Card. Bellarmine in other places doth expressely affirme that the Pope as Pope hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 5 The Diuines saith he h In his book against D. Barclay ca. 12. pag. 137. doe giue to the Pope temporall and spirituall power onely in the Dominions of the Church which power in the patrimonie of S. Peter Pope Innocent in cap. per venerabilem doth call a full power ouer other Christian Prouinces they doe giue to the Pope onely a spirituall power which of it selfe and properly doth regard spirituall things but temporall things it doth regard as they are subordained to spirituall And therefore when we speake properly we say that the Pope hath power in temporals but not that he hath temporall power as he is Pope Now how these two can stand together that the spirituall and temporall power among Christians doe make one entire and totall body whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head as the body and soule doe make one man and yet that the Pope as Pope shall haue no temporall power which in it selfe is temporall but onely spirituall athough in some cases extended to temporall things seeing that these two powers doe truely compose the Church of Christ and consequently both of them are truly and really in the Church which they compound and so likewise in the Pope in whom all the power of the Church doth reside I remit to the iudgement of any sensible man 5. Besides what a more flat contradiction can there be then this to say that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe compound indeede two partiall but one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ or Christian common-wealth as hee heere affirmeth i In his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. and withall that the Church of Christ or the Christian common-wealth is compounded onely of spirituall authoritie as a little beneath hee affirmeth in these words d In his Schulckenius cap
cap. 14. replieth in this manner That which I sayd that the members of the same body are connected and that one doth depend vpon another I vnderstood of members of a diuerse kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder and a head and not of members of the same kinde as are two hands two feet two eyes two eares For the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power whereof we speake are of a diuerse kinde as it is manifest and words are to bee vnderstood according to the matter which is treated of otherwise there could not bee any demonstration so certaine against which there could not bee brought some cauill Therefore Kingly power which is principall in his kinde if it compound one body with the Ecclesiasticall power which also in his kinde is principall must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that in one bodie there be two heads and seeing that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in steede of Christ it doth plainely follow that a King must either bee no member of this body or else hee must bee subiect to the Pope and in the same manner the ciuill power which doth chiefely reside in the King must either bee subiect to the spirituall which doth chiefely reside in the Pope or else it must remaine out of the Church in that manner as a finger cannot be in the body which doth not depend vpon the hand nor a hand which doth not depend vpon the arme nor an arme which doth not depend vpon the shoulder nor a shoulder which doth not depend vpon the head 5. But that which Barclay saith a little after that the spirituall and ciuill power are as two shoulders in a body whereof neither is subiect to the other but both of them are subiect to one head which is Christ is not onely false because those powers are not of the same kinde that they may be compared to two shoulders but also it appertaines to the heresie of this time For what doe the heretikes of this time more endeauour to perswade the people then that the Pope is not the visible head of the body of the Church vnto whom all Christians if they will be saued must bee subiect But this Barclay of his owne accord doth grant them who neuerthelesse in all his booke doth make himselfe a Catholike Therefore the spirituall and ciuill power are not well compared to two shoulders but they ought either to bee compared to the spirit and flesh as did S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the place often cited compare them or else to the shoulder and head to wit principall members wherof neuerthelesse the one although of it selfe very strong and potent ought to bee directed and gouerned by the other which is superiour 6 But this Reply of Card Bellarmine although at the first sight may seeme especially to the vnlearned to haue in it some shew of probabilitie yet to the iudicious Reader who will be pleased to examine it more exactly it will clearely appeare to be in very deede very vnsound and fallacious to D. Barclay very iniurious to Catholike religion very scandalous and in very truth to haue in it no probabilitie at all d Cap. 14. §. 2o. as Mr. Iohn Barclay in his answer to Card. Bellarmine hath most clearely convinced And first whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that when he said that members of the same body are depending one vpon the other he vnderstood of memberâ— of a diuers kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder a head and not of members of the same kind as are two hands two feet c. Mr. Barclay replyeth that it is vntrue that members of a diuerse kind are depending one vpon the other as the hand doth not depend vpon the foot the liuer vpon the lights the splene vpon the shoulders c. 7 And as for those examples which Card. Bellarmine doth bring hee vseth therein great deceipt for neither doth the finger for that cause depend vpon the hand nor the hand vpon the arme nor the arme vpon the shoulder for that they are members of one body but for that by order of nature the finger cannot consist or bee of it selfe without the hand nor the hand without the arme nor the arme without the shoulder Neuerthelesse many members of the same body also of a diuerse kinde can well consist one without the other as the eye without the eare the shoulder without the foot the nose without the eie c as likewise these two members whereof we now treate of the Christian common-wealth not onely may but also did actually as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth e Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. in the A-Apostles time consist one without the other And if this proposition of Card. Bellarmine be true that the members of one body if they bee of a diuerse kinde must depend one vpon the other hee must acknowledge that in one kingdome the Musician must depend vpon the Physician or the Physician vpon the Musician the Shooe-maker vpon the Taylor or the Taylor vpon the Shooe-maker the Lord Chamberlaine vpon the Lord Treasurer or the Lord Treasurer vpon the Lord Chamberlaine to omit infinite other such like trades and dignitieâ— all which are members of the same bodie or Kingdome whereas it is too too manifest that they are not subiect or depend one vpon the other but either immediately vpon the King or vpon those Magistrates whom the King shall appoint 8. Secondly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in place of Christ from whence it doth clearely follow that a King must either be no member of this body or else he must be subiect to the Pope Mr. Barclay replyeth that Card. Bellarmine doth cunningly equiuocate in that word Church For the Pope indeed is head of the Church that is of Ecclesiasticall things or of Christians as they are Christians in so much that a King cannot be a member of the Church being taken in this manner but hee must be subâ—ect to the Pope But if by the Church hee vnderstand both powers ciuill and Ecclesiasticall which are among Christians both Lay-men and Cleargiemen who are ioyned by one linke of faith he iâ— altogether deceiued For the Pope is not the head of ciuill things and therfore in vaine doth Card. Bellarmine affirme that Kingly power must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that there be two heades in one bodie For taking the Church in that sense as it comprehendeth ciuill and spirituall power the Church hath Christ only for the head and the Pope and Kings for chiefe members who also in an other respect are ministeriall heades vnder Christ the King of ciuill gouernment and the Pope of spirituall Besides Card. Bellarmine doth now change his medium as the Logicians call it His argument which he tooke vpon him to defend was this They are members of one body therefore one
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
also as it is ciuill is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Thirdly saith he a Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap 7. if the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince according to the opinion of all men is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall 2 Neither doth he satisfie that should answer that a Prince is bound to change that manner of his gouernment not for the subordination to the spirituall power but onely for order of charitie by which wee are bound to preferre greater goods before losser For in regard of the order of charitie one common-wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common-wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment And one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth is not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble Seeing therefore that the temporall common-wealth is bound to suffer detriment for the spiritual common-weatlh it is a signe that they are not two diuerse common-wealths but parts of one and the same common-wealth and one subiect to the other 3. Neither also is it of force if one should say that a temporall Prince is bound to suffer detriment for the spirituall good not in regard of any subiection of the temporall commonwealth to the spirituall common wealth but because otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose spiritualls for temporalls For although those men who are not his subiects but are of an other kingdome should suffer any notable hurt in spiritualls for the gouernment in temporalls of some Christian King he is bound to change his manner of gouernment whereof no other reason can be giuen but that they are members of the same body and one subiect to the other 4. By this argument Card. Bellarmine as you see laboureth to proue two things the one is that not only Lay-men and Cleargie-men doe make one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for of this no Catholike maketh any doubt but also that the temporall spirituall power themselues or which is all one the temporall and spirituall common wealth as they consist of temporall and spirituall power are parts or this totall body called the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head The second is that not only temporall Princes are in spirituals subiect to the supreme spirituall Pastour but also that the temporall power itselfe as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and consequently that temporall Princes not onely in spiritualls but also in all temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power But neither of these can bee rightly concluded from this argument as I shewed in my Apologie b Num. 160. seq where I denied the consequence of this third argument speaking of subiection and subordination per se and of it owne nature For if temporall gouernment doe hinder spirituall good the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with detriment of temporall good not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as though of the temporall and spirituall power were made formally one politike body but for both the reasons alledged by Card. Bellarmine which he did not sufficiently confute in his Replyes 5. The first reason is for the order of charitie by which we are bound to prefer greater goods before lesser To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrarie I answered thus that although for the order of charity one common wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment yet in case that both common wealths bee subiect to one Prince or that the Prince of the lesse noble coÌ„mon wealth be also a subiect of the more noble then that Prince is bound for order of charitie all other things being alike to preferre the more noble common-wealth before the lesse noble And although one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth bee not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble yet in case that the same priuate man should at the same time bee a Citizen of both common-wealths if he be bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the lesse noble common wealth whereof he is a Citizen he is much more bound for the same order of charitie to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the more noble common wealth to which also he is subiect And this is the very case in this present question For the spirituall and ciuill power and the common wealths which they compound are so vnited and connected among Christians that euery Christian is a Citizen of both common wealths and both common wealths may be subiect to the same Prince as appeareth in the Pope who is the spirituall Prince or Pastour of the whole Christian world and also a temporall Prince of some Prouinces thereof 6. The second reason for which a temporall Prince is bound to change the manner of his gouernment in the aforesaid case is for that otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose greater goods for the lesser that is spirituall goods for temporall To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrary I answered that the reason wherefore a temporall Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment if it be greatly hurtfull to the spirituall good not only of his owne subiects but also of the subiects of another Kingdome is not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall or for that both of them are parts of one and the same totall common wealth but because both the King and also those subiects of an other temporall kingdome are also members of the same mysticall body of Christ and Cittizens of the same spirituall Kingdome and therefore that King least that he should greatly preiudice in spiritualls the kingdome of Christ whereof he is a Citizen by his temporall gouernment is bound to change that manner of gouernment Thus I answered in my Apologie 7. Now you shall see how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift of this answere To the first part of my answere he replyeth thus c Pag. 339. Hâ—ere I see nothing that needeth any answere sauing that as though of the temporall and spirituall power were formally made one politike body For my Aduersary Widdrington doth grant the antecedent of Card. Bellarmines argument and denieth the consequence and for this cause he doth deny it for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made
formally one politike body and therefore one power is not per se subiect to the other But what man that is well in his wits did euer say that of the temporall and spirituall power is made formally one politike body For although Cleargie men are Cittizens of the ciuill common wealth as they liue together with the Citizens of that common wealth and do buy sell and doe other things according to the lawes of that common-wealth yet because they are exempted from the power of the politike Prince and doe obserue his lawes not by force of the law but by force of reason they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called parts of the ciuill common-wealth 8. Adde also that if the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power should make one politike body the Ecclesiasticall should either be superiour or subiect to the ciuill superiour it could not be for that the King is head of the politike body neither could it be subiect for that a superiour power ought not to be subiect to an inferiour And besides as it hath beene sayd Cleargie men are exempted from the power of a politike Prince and therefore the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe not make properly and formally one politike body But my Aduersarie doth faine absurd opinions which hee may refell That which Card. Bellarmine saith is that the spirituall and temporall power that is Bishops Kings and their subiects Clerkes and Laikes doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ wherein all things are well ordered and disposed and therefore superiour things doe rule inferiour things and inferiour things are subiect to superiour things Let my Aduersarie Widdrington ouerthrow this and then let him deny the consequence of Card. Bellarmines argument Thus D. Schulckenius 9. But how vnsound cunning and insufficient is this Reply of D. Schulckenius and also repugnant to his owne grounds you shall presently perceiue And first when I denied that the spirituall and temporall power doe make formally one politike body by a politike body I did not vnderstand as it distinguished and contra-diuided to a spirituall body but as it is distinguished from a naturall body and comprehendeth in generall all politike gouernments whether they be temporall spirituall or mixt in which sense not onely earthly kingdomes compounded of temporall power but also the spirituall kingdome mysticall body or Church of Christ consisting onely of spirituall power is a politike body Wherefore by the name of a politike body I vnderstood a common-wealth in generall whether it were temporall spirituall or mixt of both as any man who is not desirous to cauill may easily perceiue by all those answers and assertions which I did so often inculcate concerning the vnion and coniunction of these two powers So that my meaning in that place onely was to deny that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to the visible heads and subiects of both powers doe make formally one totall common-wealth but onely materially for that the same Christian men who haue temporall power or temporall subiection doe make one spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power or temporall subiection for so they make onely temporall and earthly kingdomes but formally as they haue temporall and spirituall power temporall and spirituall subiection and are referred to the visible heads thereof they make two totall bodies or common-wealths as before I haue declared more at large 10. Secondly although it be true that temporall and spirituall power that is Kings and Bishops Clerks and Laikes as D. Schulckenius expoundeth those words which neuerthelesse is a very improper acception of those words for that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doth signifie Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they haue temporall and spirituall power doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ yet this was not all that which Card. Bellarmine affirmed for Card. Bellarmine affirmed another thing which I pretended to impugne and which D. Schulckenius cunningly concealeth to wit that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one This was that which I impugned not two common-wealths but one I neuer denied that they did make one common-wealth to wit the Church of Christ but withall I affirmed that they did make also two to wit the earthly kingdomes also of this Christian world So that I did not inuent or faine absurd opinions to confute them as D. Schulckenius vntruely affirmeth but I haue cleerely shewed and that out of Card. Bellarmines or D. Schulckenius his owne grounds as before you haue seene more at large d Cap. 1. 2. 3. that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally two totall bodies or common-wealths and that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes diuerse wayes considered are parts and members of them both 11. Thirdly although I had taken a politike bodie for a temporall common-wealth as in very truth I did not but onely for a common-wealth in generall as a politike bodie is distinguished from a naturall bodie yet I might be very well in my wits and neuerthelesse haue affirmed that the temporall and spirituall power doe in the like manner and for the same cause make formally one temporal common-wealth for the which D. Schulckenius doth heere affirme that temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one spirituall bodie or common-wealth For the reason why he affirmeth that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one Ecclesiasticall or spirituall common-wealth is for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ and subiect to the spirituall power of the supreme spirituall Pastor which reason if it be of force doth also conclude that the temporall and spirituall power may in like manner â—e sayd to make formally one temporal common-wealth for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are also true members and parts of the temporall common-wealth and therfore they are either temporall Princes themselues or subiect in temporals to the temporal power of temporal Princes And therfore the reason why D. Schulckenius doth here affirm That the temporall and spiritual power do not make formally one politicke or temporal body is as you haue seen for that the Clergie are exempted from the power of a politicke Prince and do obserue his Lawes not by force of the Law but by force of reason and therefore saith he they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called a part of the politicke common-wealth From whence it cleerly followeth that if a man may be well in his wits and yet affirme that Cleargie men are true parts members and subiects of the temporall common wealth and consequently are not exempted from temporall subiection but doe owe true fidelitie and allegiance to temporall Princes hee may also bee well in his wits and yet affirme according to D. Shulckenius his reason that of the temporall
and spirituall power that is of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes is made properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth 12. And dare D. Schulckenius trow you presume to say that S. Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius * Ad Rom. 13. and those others whom partly I did cite before e Cap. 6. and partly I will beneath f Cap. 12. were not well in their wits when they affirmed That whether he be a Monke or a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes Or dare he presume to say that Dominicus Sotus Franciscus Victoria Medina Sayrus Valentia and innumerable other Diuines cited by Sayrus g Lib. 3. Thesaurie 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16 and also by Salas h Disp 14. de Legibus sect 8. the Iesuite whose opinion hee approoueth and withall affirmeth That some few moderne Diuines doe hold the contrary were not well in their wits when they taught that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to their state nor to Ecclesiasticall Lawes or Canons and that Kings are Lords of Cleargie men and that Cleargie men are bound to come at their call and as Subiects to sweare allegeance and obedience to them as Salas in expresse words affirmeth and that Cleargie men are not exempted from secular power concerning the directiue or commanding force thereof in ciuill Lawes which are profitable to the good state of the common wealth which are the expresse words of Gregorius de Valentia tom 3. disp 9. q. 5. punc 3. 13 And to conclude dare D. Schulckenius presume to say that Cardinall Bellarmine was not well in his wits when hee wrote i Lib. 1. de Clericis câ—p 28. propos 2a. That Cleargie men are not in any manner exempted from the obligation of ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to holy Canons or to the office of their Clergie although in the last Editions of his Booke he hath left out those words in any manner not alleaging any cause wherefore And therefore although Cleargie men are by the Ecclesiastical Lawes and priuiledges of temporall Princes exempted fâ—om the tribunalls of secular Magistrates and from paying of certaine tributes and personall seruices yet to say that they are exempted wholly from temporall subiection and that they are not subiect to the directiue power of the ciuil Lawes nor can truely and properly commit treasons against any temporall Prince for that they owe not true fidelitie allegiance and ciuill subiection to any temporall Prince as some few Iesuites of these latter times haue not feared to a uerre whose opinion Card. Bellarmine now contrarie to his ancient doctrine which for many yeeres together he publikely maintained doth now seeme to follow is repugnant in my iudgement both to holy Scriptures so expounded by the ancient Fathers to the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and once also of Card. Bellarmine himselfe at which time I thinke D. Schulckenius will not say that he was not wel in his wits and also to the practise both of the primitiue Church and of all Christian Kingdomes euen to these dayes and it is a doctrine newly broached in the Christian world without sufficient proofe scandalous to Catholike Religion iniurious to Chrian Princes and odious to the pious eares of all faithfull and well affected Subiects 14. The other reason which D. Schulckenius allegeth why Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laicks doe not make properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth for to say that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doe make formally either one temporal or one spiritual coÌ„mon-wealth is very vntrue and repugnant to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before vnlesse we will speake very improperly to wit for that Cleargie men are superiour and not subiect is as insufficient as the former for that temporall Princes are in temporalls superiour and haue preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy men And therefore the temporall and spirituall power or Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth doe neither make one politike or temporall body nor one spirituall or Ecclesiasticall body nor one total common-wealth consisting of both powers whereof the Pope is head but they doe make formally and properly two totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the spirituall kingdome of Christ which consisteth onely of spirituall power and the earthly kingdomes of this Christian world which consisteth onely of temporall and ciuill authority both which bodies are commonly signified by the name of the Christian world or Christian common-wealth wherin all things are well ordered and rightly disposed and therefore superiours are aboue inferiours and inferiours are subiect to superiours but in temporall causes temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the head hath the preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy-men and in spirituall causes the spirituall power whereof the Pope is head is superiour and to confound these two powers were to breake all good order as before I also declared And therfore for good reason I granted the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument and denied his consequence 15. But fourthly obserue good Reader another palpable vntruth which D. Schulckenius in this place affirmeth Card. Bellarmine as you haue seene endeuoured by his third argument to proue that the temporall power as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and his argument was this If the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of the temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall .. The antecedent proposition I did grant and I denied his consequence Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth that for this cause I denyed his consequence for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made formally one politike body which is very vntrue For although I should acknowledge as in very deede I doe that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to Christ the invisible and celestiall head doe make properly and formally one totall body or common-wealth consisting of both powers which may be called the Christian common wealth but more properly the Christian world yet I would and doe denie his consequence and the reason hereof I alledged before for that they are not essentiall parts of this totall bodie as the bodie soule are of man but integrall parts as two shoulders two sides hands feete eyes eares c. are integrall parts of mans bodie and doe not make an essentiall but an integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessarie as I shewed before k Cap. 6. nu 6. 10. that one part bee subiect to an other but it sufficeth that both be subiect to the head And although I should also grant as I doe that temporall and spirituall power doe
that both trades were subiect to one man So likwise if a man were constrained to loose either his eye or his finger the order of charitie would require that hee should preferre the eye before the finger for that the eye is a more noble a more necessarie a more profitable part of the body then the finger and yet from hence we cannot well conclude that therefore the finger is subiect or subordained to the eye but that both are parts and members of the body of the same man who therefore by order of charitie ought with due order and respect to haue a care of the whole body and euery part thereof and to preferre the more worthy necessary or profitable before the lesse worthy necessarie or profitable member And this I said was the plaine case of the temporall power among Christians compared to the spirituall for that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power temporall power and spirituall subiection c. are among Christians so vnited in one subiect that the same Christian man is a part member and Citizen both of the temporall and also of the spirituall common wealth and both common wealths may be subiect to the same Prince as appeareth in the Pope and therefore the order of charitie doth require that euery Christian man ought to preferre the spirituall good and spirituall common wealth before the temporall good and the temporall common-wealth not for that the temporall power or common wealth is subiect to the spirituall but for that all Christian Princes and people are parts members and Citizens of both common wealths and the spirituall is farre more noble and worthy and therefore if other things be alike to bee preferred before the temporall by them who are parts and members of them both 21. Now D. Schulckenius would cunningly forsooth make the Reader beleeue that I say the very same that Card. Bellarmine doth and that I doe not by my answere ouerthrow but confirme Card. Bellarmines Reply for that I am enforced saith he to confesse that the chiefe cause why a temporall Prince ought to suffer damage in temporalls least the spirituall good should be hindered is not the order of charitie but the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall when they make one spirituall common wealth or mysticall body of Christ which neuerthelesse as you haue seene is apparantly vntrue For although I doe indeed alledge subiection for a cause why the order of charitie doth require that a temporall Christian Prince ought to preferre the spirituall good before the temporall by which word subiection D. Schulckenius taketh occasion to delude his Reader yet I doe not alledge that manner of subiection which Card. Bellarmine doth as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth to wit the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall or of the temporall common wealth to the spirituall taking temporall common-wealth properly as it consisteth of temporall power and temporall subiection but the subiection of both common-wealths to one Prince or the subiection of all Christians to both common wealths to bee the cause why the order of charitie requireth that a Christian Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good 22. Belike D. Schulckenius would inferre that because the Pope is Lord of Ancona and Ferrara and ought to prefer caeteris paribus the good of the one before the other therefore the State of Ancona is subiect to the State of Ferrara or contrariwise or because the King of Spaine is King of Naples and Duke of Millan therefore the State of Millan is subiect to Naples or because a man hath two trades and ought to preferre the one before the other therefore the one is subiect to the other or because one man is a Cittizen of two cities therefore one of those cities is subiect to the other or because the eyes and eares are parts and members of the same body of man who ought therefore by order of charity to preferre the good of the more worthy and necessary member before the good of the lesse worthie and lesse necessarie therefore the eares are subiect to the eyes or contrariwise I euer affirmed that the temporall power among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall and that they doe not properly and formally as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth make one totall but two totall common-wealths although the same Christian man being considered diuerse waies is a part and member of both common-wealths and as in spirituall causes he is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall power which onely doth properly and formally make the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall common-wealth so in temporall causes hee is subiect to the ciuill power which onely doth properly and formally make the remporall or earthly kingdomes of this Christian world and because the spirituall common-wealth and good thereof is the more noble and more worthy therefore the same Christian man being a member and citizen of both common-wealths ought to preferre if other things be alike the spirituall good before temporall and not for any subiection of the temporall power or commonwealth to the spirituall But when men are not disposed to deale sincerely for truthes sake but are resolued to defend per fas nefas what they haue once taken in hand to maintaine and doe not fight for truth but for credit they little regard what they say so that with cunning smooth words they may colour their sayings in such sort as that they may blind dazel or confound the vnderstanding of the Reader And thus much concerning Card. Bellarmines first Reply 23. Now to the answer which I made to Card. Bellarmines second Reply by which hee pretended to prooue the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall D. Schulckenius m Pag. 343. replieth in this manner I answer that my Aduersary Widdrington saith nothing which doth weaken Card. Bellarmines argument That which Card. Bellarmine did assume to wit that a temporall Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment not onely least that hee should hurt in spirituals his owne subiects but also least that he should hurt other Christians my Aduersarie Widdrington doth grant And in this assumption or antecedent proposition all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist Besides when Widdrington denyeth that the temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them bee parts of one and the selfe same Christian common-wealth and afterwards granteth that a temporall King and those who are ciuilly subiect vnto him are members of the mysticall body and Citizens of the same spirituall Kingdome he doth manifestly contradict himselfe For what else is this that Christian Kings and their Subiects are members of the same mysticall body of Christ and Citizens of the same spirituall Kingdome I say what else is this then that Christian Kings and their Lay-Subiects are parts of the Christian common-wealth For the Christian common-wealth and the
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
temporall power it selfe speaking properly and formally is not subiect to the spirituall nor dooth compound the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ And therefore I haue not onely weakened but also quite ouerthrowne and that out of his owne grounds this conclusion of Card. Bellarmine and all those three arguments which he brought to confirme the same as any iudicious Reader who will duly examine both our writings will easily perceiue Chap. 8. Wherein is examined the fourth argument taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man 1. THE fourth argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue this subiection of of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall power of the Church is taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene who compareth the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man yea and also affirmeth that temporall Magistrates are subiect to spirituall Pastors And this similitude doth so greatly please Card. Bellarmines conceit that when hee hath any fit occasion he spareth not to inculcate it as a very strong argument and fit similitude to proue that the temporall power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as the body in man is per se subiect to the soule For as the spirit and flesh saith he a Lib. 5. de RoÌ„ pont cap. 6. are in man so are the spirituall and temporall power in the Church For the spirit and flesh are as it were two common-wealths which may be found separated and also vnited The flesh hath sense and appetite to which are answerable their acts and proper obiects and of all which the immediate end is the health good constitution of the body The spirit hath vnderstanding and wil and acts and proportionate obiects and for her end the health and perfection of the soule The flesh is found without the spirit in beasts the spirit is found without the flesh in Angels 2 Whereby it is manifest that neither of them is precisely for the other The flâ—sh also is found vnited to the spirit in man where because they make one person they haue necessarily subordination and connexion For the flesh is subiect the spirit is superiour and although the spirit doth not intermeddle hir selfe with the actions of the flesh but doth suffer the flesh to exercise all hir actions as shee doth exercise in beasts yet when they doe hurt the end of the spirit the spirit doth command the flesh and doth punish hir and if it be needfull doth appoint fastings and also other afflictions euen with some detriment and weakning of the bodie and doth compell the tongue not to speake the eyes not to see c. In like manner if any action of the flesh yea and death it selfe be necessarie to obtaine the end of the spirit the spirit hath power to command the flesh to expose hir selfe and all hirs as wee see in Martyrs 3 Euen so the ciuill power hath hir Princes lawes iudgements c. and likewise the Ecclesiasticall hath hir Bishops Canons iudgements The ciuill hath for hir end temporall peace the spirituall euerlasting saluation They are sometimes found separated as long since in the time of the Apostles sometimes vnited as now And when they are vnited they make one bodie and therefore they ought to be connected and the inferiour subiect and subordained to the superiour Therefore the spirituall power doth not intermeddle hir selfe with temporall affaires but doth suffer all things to proceed as before they were vnited so that they be not hurtfull to the spirituall end or not necessarie to the attayning therevnto But if any such thing doe happen the spirituall power may and ought to compell the temporall by all manner and waies which shall seeme necessarie therevnto 4 Thus you see that Card Bellarmine hath made here a plausible discourse but truly more beseeming as I will most clearely convince a cunning oratour who with fine and wittie conceipts seeketh rather to please curious eares then a sound Diuine who with substantial arguments and forcible proofes should endeauour to convince the vnderstanding of iudicious men especially in such points as are pretended to belong to Catholike faith and eternall saluation For neither is the temporall and spirituall power among Christians well compared to the body and soule of man either in vnion or in subiection and besides although it were in all things a fit similitude yet it doth not any way proue that which Card. Bellarmine pretendeth to proue thereby but it doth clearely and directly as you shall see convince the flat contrarie 5 For first as I shewed before b Cap. 2. 3. out of Card Bellarmines owne grounds the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to their visible heads here on earth doe not make properly and formally one totall bodie or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ but they doe make properly and formally two totall bodies or common wealths to wit earthly kingdomes or a temporall and ciuill bodie whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius expressely affirmeth c Pag. 339. and the spirituall kingdome mysticall bodie or Church of CHRIST whereof the Pope is head and which as D. Schulckenius also affirmeth d Pag. 203. is onely compounded of spirituall power Seeing therefore that the reason why Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that temporall power among Christians is subiect to the spirituall is for that they do make one totall bodie or common-wealth as the bodie and soule doe make one man and consequently the temporall power must be subiect to the spirituall as the bodie is subiect to the soule of man and as I haue clearely proued there is no such vnion of the temporall and spirituall power to make one totall bodie consisting of both powers which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of CHRIST it is manifest that Card Bellarmines argument drawne from this similitude of the soule and bodie being grounded vpon this vnion of the temporall and spirituall power compounding one totall bodie hath no sure ground or foundation at all 6 Secondly although I doe willingly grant as you haue seene before e Cap. 1. that not onely the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred not to their visible heads here on earth but to CHRIST the invisible head of them both doe make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting actually of both powers which may bee called the Christian world in which sense the Christian common wealth is vsually taken but the Church of CHRIST and especially the spirituall kingdome of CHRIST is seldome taken in that sense but also the whole world consisting of Christians and Infidells may in that manner be called one totall bodie whereof CHRIST at least wise as he is GOD is the invisible and celestiall head neuerthelesse this similitude of the soule and bodie vnited in one man
people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith loyalty and spirituall allegeance which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and the Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power which he hath by the Law of God and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus 32. True it is that the Reader might the better vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose of temporals and to dispose of them himselfe are very different things and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other I brought a familiar example of one who either by promise or by some other obligation and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise and cleane omitteth the other obligation is bound to dispose and giue his goods or life at anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding power which he hath ouer him and them take them away and dispose of them without his consent but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command according as by vertue either of his promise or of some other obligation he is bound to doe the other may complaine to the Magistrate that hee will punish him for his offence or cause him to performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword and to haue a power to vse it or to depriue of the vse thereof are two different things neither doth one necessarily follow from the other although the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope as Pope can vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implieth a power to vse the same but onely that the Pope being a spirituall Prince or Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor of the spirituall kingdome Church of Christ 33. Thus therefore you haue seen that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same then he hath done For although it be cleere that the temporall sword is according to S. Bernard the Popes in some sort and doth belong to the Church in some sort which words in some sort D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke direction or declaratiue command of the Pope yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes and belongeth to the Pope in some sort that it is to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier and not of the Priest at the becke indeede of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour and that our Sauiour commanded and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard do plainly shew that according to S. Bernard the Pope as Pope cannot vse the temporal sword nor constrain a temporall Prince by vsing temporall punishments which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword 34. And for D. Barclay and Iohn of Paris to omit our learned Country-man Alexander of Hales whose words I related before p Num. 18. who doe giue the very same answere which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine heere doth make very small reckoning yet I do plainly confesse that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword and to dispose of all temporals in order to spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely then he hath done Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane but onely to the particular exposition which som few especially of late yeeres who haue scraped together all the authorities of Fathers Councells Scriptures facts and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie haue wrested out the words of the said Councel contrarie to the plaine sense of the words and the common vnderstanding of all ancient Diuines who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines and those also who not perceiuing their owne errour doe accuse others of the same to alleadge in confirmation of their opinions the holy Scriptures and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning and then to cry out against their brethren who mislike their opinions that they haue the holy Sriptures and sacred Councels on their side and that therefore their doctrine is of faith and the contrary hereticall and that their Aduersaries doe oppose themselues against the holy Scriptures and decrees of the Catholike Church whereas wee doe regard with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures sacred Councels and decrees of the Catholik Church the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense not in the letter or in the expositiō of any priuate Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors which he maintained cōcerning confession and absolution of whose authoritie neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
cap. meruit de privilegijs wherein hee declareth that no preiudice shall arise to the King of France by that Extrauagant of Pope Boniface but that all things shall be vnderstood to be in the same state as they were before that definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King and Kingdome of France Thirdly for that all the authorities which hee bringeth from holy Scriptures to proue that the Pope hath both the temporall and spirituall sword doe proue only that the Pope is the spirituall Pastour of the Church and hath spirituall power to binde and loose to iudge and punish spiritually as whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth c. and a spirituall man doth iudge all things and he is iudged by none which place some Catholike writers expound of publike and authenticall iudgments For all the other places of holy Scripture which Pope Boniface alledgeth are either taken in the mysticall and not in the literall sense as those behold two swords here and put vp thy sword into the scabard but from the mysticall sense no forcible argument can bee drawne as all Diuines doe grant to proue any doctrine vnlesse to haue that mysticall sense it be declared in other places of holy Scripture or else they make nothing to the purpose as are those words which God spake to the Prophet Ieremie Behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer the Gentiles and ouer Kingdomes that thou maiest plucke vp and destroy and waste and dissipate and build and plant not to destroy nations and kingdomes and raise vp others but by his preaching to plant virtues and destroy vices as S. Hierome expoundeth and by foretelling the destruction of Kingdomes and Nations if they doe not repent and their increase and saluation if they will bee converted Neither is the Pope S. Ieremies Successour in the spirit of prophesie neither doe wee read that Ieremie destroyed any kingdom although he fulfilled all that which he was appointed to do by Alm God 41. It is the same saith Andreas Capella vpon this place to appoint him ouer the Gentiles and to giue him a Prophet in the Gentiles as he said before I giue thee power and authoritie saith God to declare and foretell in my name as my Prophet the ruines and wastings of the Gentiles and of Kingdomes That thou threaten my enemies whom in their Countries I haue planted placed confirmed erected that I will abolish them with captiuities vnlesse they will repent And contrariwise that I will build them and plant them againe that is restore to their ancient state them whom I shall destroy and abollish if they will acknowledge their sinnes And in these words all the charge of Ieremie is comprehended and the matter of this whole booke is declared For it is a prophecie of the destruction of the City and temple and of the captiuitie of the people and of their returne from captiuity and of the reedifying of the temple and City and of the ouerthrow of other nations and kingdomes Thus Capella And the same exposition of these words hath the Glosse vpon this place Besides Pope Boniface in this Extrauagant alledgeth for Scripture that which is no Scripture to wit for the truth testifying the spirituall power hath to institute or instruct the earthly power and to iudge it if it shall not be good which words are not to be found in the holy Scripture 42. Lastly there is no more account to be made of the authoritie of Pope Boniface the eight for this his doctrine in this point touching the Popes temporal authoritie ouer temporall Princes if we take him as a priuate Doctour deliuering his opinion then of an other Doctour as well learned as he was who holdeth with the Canonists that the Pope is direct Lord King of the world not only spirituall but also temporall for that Pope Boniface was of this opinion that the Pope hath direct power not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls Whereupon he wrote to Philip the faire King of France that he was subiect to him in spirituals and temporalls and that all those who should hold the contrary he reputed for heretikes and that the kingdome of France by reason of the Kings disobedience was falne to the Church For which words Pope Boniface is taxed by Ioannes Tilius x In Chron. ad annum 1302. Bishop of Meldune by Robertus Guaguinus y Lib. 7. in Philippo Pulch. by Platina z In vita Bonifaci◠octaui and others of great pride impudencie and arrogancie Whereupon Paulus Aemilius who doth otherwise greatly fauour Pope Boniface writeth thus * In Philippo Pulchro Pope Boniface did add at which all men did marmaile that the King of France ought to reuerence the Pope not only in sacred manner and by Episcopall right as a Father of our soules but he ought also to acknowledge him as his Prince by ciuill Iurisdiction and in prophane matters and dominion All this being considered as also that all the words of that Extrauagant are so generall that they may be vnderstood as well if not better of the Popes direct dominion in temporalls as of his indirect power to dispose of temporals which is only in order to spirituall good what great reckoning is to be made of this cōstitution of P. Boniface it being withal reuersed by P. Clemens the 5. who next but one succeeded him I remit to the cōsideration of the iudicious Reader Chap. 10. Wherein the similitude of Pope Innocent the third who compareth the spirituall and temporall power to the Sun Moone is examined 1. THe sixt and last argument which Card. Bellarmine bringth to proue the sbiection of the temporall power to the spirituall is taken from the authority of Pope Innocent the third who in cap. Solitae de maioritate obedientia doth wel saith he a In tract contra Barcl c. 13. in fine compare the spirituall temporall power to the Sun Moone Therefore as the moone is subiect to the Sun for that she receiueth light from the Sun the Sun is not subiect to the Moone for that the Sun receiueth nothing from the Moon so also a king is subiect to the Pope the Pope is not subiect to a king 2. But first this similitude doth not proue that the temporall power it selfe is subiect to the spirituall or which is all one that a temporall King is subiect to the Pope in respect of his temporall power which he doth not receiue from the Pope but in respect of the light of faith which a temporall King receiueth from the spirituall power And therefore as the Moone when she is eclypsed in opposition to the Sun doth not loose that little light which according to the doctrin of the Philosophers and astronomers she hath of her owne nature and not deriued from the Sunne so temporall Princes when of Catholikes or Christians they become heretikes or infidells and are in opposition to the Pope do not loose
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
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