one person So likewise the ciuill and spirituall power are somtimes found diuided as long since in the Apostles time somtimes vnited as now and when they are vnited they make one body or common wealth 2. To this argument I answered in my Apologie b num 139. 140. that from the words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene onely these two things can be gathered The first that the spirituall power is more worthy and more noble then the temporall and that therefore the temporall must in worthinesse yeeld and giue place to the spirituall The second is that Christian Princes although in temporalls and in things belonging to ciuill gouernment they are supreme on earth and therefore subiect to none yet in that they are Christians they are subiect in spirituals and in things belonging to Christian Religion to the command of spirituall Pastours of the flocke of Christ For these bee the expresse wordes which he vsed to the Christian President For the law of Christ doth make you also subiect to my power and authoritie for we also haue authoritie to command I add also a more noble and more perfect vnlesse it be meete that the spirit do submit her power to the flesh and heauenly things doe giue place to earthly From which words this onely can be inferred that the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall and that all Christian Princes and Magistrates as they are the sheepe of Christ are in spirituall things subiect to the spirituall Pastours of the Church which all Catholikes will freely grant But that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the supreme visible heads here on earth do make one totall body or common wealth as the soule and body do make one man or that the temporall power among Christians as it is temporall for this much doth signifie the temporall and spirituall power taking them in abstracto or which is all one that temporall Princes are in meere temporall causes subiect to spirituall Pastours cannot with any shew of probabilitie bee gathered out of those words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene 3. Wherefore the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is nothing like to the vnion of the body and soule in man for that the body is a substantiall matter and the soule a substantiall forme and therefore being vnited they make one substantiall compound which is called man who therefore hath in him actually properly and formally both body and soule as euery compound hath in him the parts whereof it is compounded but the ciuill and spirituall power are not among Christians vnited as two parts compounding really and actually one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for that according to Card. Bellarmines owne doctrine the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is compounded only of spirituall power and not of ciuill power as ciuill is distinguished from spirituall but ciuill and spirituall power ciuill power and spirituall subiection ciuill subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and ciuill subiection are only vnited among Christians as two accidents for example Musike and Phisike are vnited in one man which vnion being only accidentall and in subiect is not sufficient to cause the temporall and spirituall power to make truely properly and formally one body whereof the Pope is bead but only to make the same man either to haue in him both temporall and spirituall power or temporall power and spirituall subiection or both temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and temporall subiection and consequently the same man to bee guided directed and gouerned in temporall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the temporall power and in spirituall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the spirituall power As the vnion of Musike and Phisike in one man although it be only materiall accidentall and in subiect yet it maketh the same man to be both a Musician and a Physitian and as he is a Musitian to be guided and directed by the lawes and precepts of Musicke and as a Phisitian by the rules precepts of phisike but it doth not make Musike to be guided and directed by Physike or a Musicion as he is a Musician to be guided and directed by a Physition as he is a Physitian So likewise the aforesaid vnion of temporall and spirituall power of temporall power and spirituall subiection c. in one man doth not make the temporall power to be subiect to the spirituall or a temporall Prince as hee is a temporall Prince or which is all one in temporall causes to bee guided directed and gouerned by the spirituall power as it is spirituall But of this similitude of the soule and body wee shall haue occasion to treat againe beneath c Cap. 8. 4. Pardon me good Reader that sometimes I repeate the same things somewhat often it is not to make my booke the bigger and to fill it vp with idle repetitions of the same things as my Aduersaries to disgrace me are pleased to lay to my charge not considering that they themselues do often times commit the like but it is onely to cleere thy vnderstanding and to make thee throughly comprehend the difficultie and in what manner the temporall and spirituall power are vnited and subordained among Christians considering that my Aduersaries to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to punish temporally by way of constraint doe so often inculcate this vnion and subordination as a principall ground whereon the Popes power in temporalls doth depend And thus you haue seene how weakely Card. Bellarmine and disagreeably to his owne principles hath laboured to proue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common wealth whereof the Pope is head now you shall see how weakely also and not conformably to his owne doctrine he endeauoureth to proue that the temporall power among Christians is subiect and subordained to the spirituall Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes touching this point are rehearsed 1. FIrst therefore that you may perceiue the true state of the question and wherein I doe agree with Card Bellarmine and wherein we differ I doe agree with him in this that Christian Princes in whom the supreme temporall power doth reside being the sheepe of Christ no lesse then inferiour persons are subiect to the supreme visible Pastour of the Church of Christ but the question is in what things and also in what manner they are subiect Secondly we also agree in this that Christian Princes are in spirituall things or which doe belong to Christian faith and Religion subiect not onely to the directiue or commanding power but also in spirituall punishments to the coerciue or punishing power of spirituall
among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power is for that in his Schulckenius he affirmeth h Pag. 276. ad nu 140. That among the Heathen Romanes the ciuill power was subiect to the spiritual power of a false religion and a little beneath if the ciuill power saith he be ioyned with a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion as it was in the Heathen Romane Common-wealth then it is actually subordained to a false Ecclesiasticall power and if it bee ioyned with a true Ecclesiasticall power as in the Christian and Catholike Church then it is actually subordained to a true Ecclesiasticall power Now what Philosopher or Diuine will affirme that a true ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature actually ordained subordained or referred to a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion or to the worshipping of false Gods Therfore this subiection subordination or relation of true ciuill power to the spirituall proceedeth from the intention of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside who according to his faith and religion bee it true or false referreth his true ciuill power to a true or false Religion to a true or false worshipping of God and not from the nature or any intrinsecal propertie of the true ciuill power it selfe which as it is the same in Infidels and Christians or in whatsoeuer subiect it be so also of it own nature hath the same end as well in Infidels as in Christians to wit temporall peace to which of it owne nature it is alwaies referred And therefore I doe not onely say but also I doe cleerely prooue and that out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to which neuerthelesse I being only an answerer and not an opponent was not tied that neither the ciuil power being only a naturall power nor the end of ciuill power which is temporal peace being onely a naturall end is per se and of it owne nature subiect or subordained to a true supernaturall power or end but onely by the intension of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside 9. Now you shal see how wel D. Schulckenius proueth the contrarie But wee prooue the contrary saith he i Pag. 329. ad nu 162. because the end of the spirituall common-wealth is euerlasting saluation which is the last end the end of the temporall common-wealth is the peace of the Citie or Kingdome which is not the last end but a mediate end But all ends are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the last end and in vertue of it they doe mooue as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the first efficient cause and in vertue of it they worke whatsoeuer they doe worke See S. Thomas 1â— 2â— q. 1. ar 6. 10. But to this argument I answered before that the last create end of the spirituall common-wealth which is a companie of men vnited by Baptisme in that manner as I declared before is eternal saluation to which they ought to referre all their powers both temporall and spirituall and all their actions both in generall and particular but I denied that the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it bee conioyned in one the selfe same subiect with true spirituall power is eternall saluation but onely temporall peace in the common-wealth to which of it owne nature it is onely referred as to her last end although by the intention of him in whom true ciuill and spirituall power doth reside it ought to bee referred to eternall saluation as to the last end of a Christian man but not as to the last end which the temporall power it selfe hath per se and of it owne nature Neither hath D. Schulckenius proued the contrary but rather in his Reply to my answere hee in expresse words confirmeth what I haue said For in his answere to the authority which I brought out of S. Augustine hee affirmeth That the last end of one particular will power or science is their act or operation and therefore it cannot of it owne nature be referred to eternall saluation as to the last end vnlesse D. Schulckenius will admit that the same particular power hath of it owne nature two last ends or a later end then the last which implieth a manifest contradiction but it must onely be referred extrinsecally to eternall saluation by the intention of him in whom the particular power doth reside 11 True it is That all create ends are subordained per se and of their nature to that end which is simply and absolutely the last end and doe moue in vertue thereof as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to that which is simply and absolutely the first efficient cause and in vertue thereof they doe worke whatsoeuer they do worke But this efficient and finall cause of all created things is not the eternall saluation of men but God a mighty who is Alpha Omega principium finis the beginning and end of all created things both naturall and supernaturall both vnreasonable and reasonable of accidents and substances of all powers and of all things wherein powers doe reside and who is glorified not onely by the eternall saluation but also by the eternall damnation of men God alone is simply and absolutely the last end of all created things to whome all naturall things are of their owne nature lastly referred as to the first Authour and last end of nature and supernaturall things as to the first Authour and last end of grace and glory Neither can naturall things of their owne nature be referred to any supernaturall create end as is eternall saluation but onely by the will and intention of him who by the helpe of supernatural grace shall referre and eleuate them aboue their nature to a supernaturall end Neither doth S. Thomas in that place affirme the contrary but rather most cleerely confirmeth what I haue said for there he only disputeth how euery man by his wil intention and desire referreth all good things which hee desireth to the last end 12. Marke now I beseech you D. Schulckenius his second proofe which is no whit better then the former Moreouer is not the body saith he k Pag. 330. per se or of it owne nature for the soule why then are not corporall things per se or of their owne nature for spirituall things And whereas my Aduersarie Widdrington seemeth to say that euery temporall end is per accidens or accidentally referred to a spiritual end as by man who worketh for an end it is ordained to a spirituall end it is altogether false For oftentimes wicked men doe ordaine spirituall things to temporall of whom the Apostle saith whose God is their belly and by this a temporall end is per se and of it owne nature alwaies ordained to a spirituall end but by accident and against nature by the
was Catholike and if it had not beene Catholike the Church defining it to bee Catholike should haue erred therefore it was Catholike and reuealed by God before the Church defined it Wherefore the Church cannot make a new Article of faith but that which before was true faith but not certainely knowne to vs the Church by her definition maketh it knowne to vs. 108 In like maner wee haue this from the Church to know certainly which is diuine Scripture and we are bound to account that to be diuine Scripture which the Church hath defined to be diuine And although shee doth certainely define and cannot erre yet shee doth not make by her definition that Scripture to bee diuine for therefore shee hath declared it to be diuine because it was truely diuine and if it had not beene before diuine Scripture the Church would not haue declared it to be diuine Wherefore although that assertion which is condemned by the Catholike Church to be contrary to Catholike faith and to bâ—e accounted heresie was also heresie before the definition of the Church yet before the Church did define it the maintainers of that opinion were not called heretickes because it was not knowne whether that opinion was contrary to Catholike faith but now after the definition of the Church they shall bee called hereticks whosoeuer shall approue and maintaine that opinion not for that their opinion was not before false contrary to Catholike faith and heresie but because this name of heretickes beeing infamous and appertaining to that most heinous crime doth require a certaine pertinacy and rebellion departing from the definitions of the Catholike Church which could not truely be accounted at that time when it was doubtfull and disputable and the Church had not defined whether that opinion was repugnant to Religion and faith 109. In this sense therefore it may be said that the Church hath power to declare an assertion to be Catholike and to appertaine to Catholike faith to this effect that after the definition of the Church the said assertion is so manifestly of faith that he is to be accounted an obstinate hereticke who defending the contrary shall depart from that definition although before the definition of the Church the said assertion albeit was most true and Catholike yet by reason of the doubt and controuersie touching that point hee could not iustly be called an heretick who should allow and follow the contrary position And what hath bene said if there be any doubt or controuersie touching any text of holy Scripture and the true sense thereof is proportionally to be vnderstood if there be any doubt or controruersie touching any definition of the Church and the true sense thereof as wee see there is now a controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris touching the definition of the Councell of Constance concerning the Superiority of the Church or a Generall Councell aboue the Pope and among many other Catholikes touching the decrees and declarations of diuerse other Generall Councells and now lately touching the sense of those words of the Councell of Lateran Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord c. Which some Catholikes of late haue greatly vrged to proue the Popes power to depose Princes whereof beneath b Part. 3. cap. 9. seq we will discourse at large 110. From this doctrine which neither Mr. Fitzherbert nor any other can proue to be improbable it cleerely followeth that heresie being a falshood repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probability wherewith one is perswaded that such a doctrine or position is false and repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probabilitie hee may abhorre detest and abiure that doctrine for hereticall And consequently it followeth that if it be lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure for impious damnable and false doctrine repugnant to truth contained in the word of God this Doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other which position for that it concerneth practise and not onely speculation is in very deed false impious damnable and repugnant to truth contained in holy Scriptures and ought so to be accounted not onely by those who are of opinion that the Pope hath not power to depriue Princes but also so long as this question remaineth vndecided and in controuersie by those who doe speculatiuely thinke that hee hath authority to depriue them it is lawfull also to abiure it for hereticall And this I hope may suffice for the defence of my first and principall answeare and for the confutation of M. Fitzherberts Reply therevnto 111. The Second answere which I haue heard many Catholikes giue to the aforesaid obiection of the Authour of that English Dialogue against the word hereticall contained in this clause of the oath and which Answeare Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to ouerthrow I related c Cap. 5. Sec. 2. nu 28. 29 in these words The second principall answeare which some of our Countrimen doe make to the aforesaid obiection is gathered from the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine who expounding d Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. that sentence of Pope Gregory the first e Lib. 1. epist 24. I confesse that I doe receiue the foure first Councells as the foure bookes of the Gospell affirmeth that the aduerbe as doth import a similitude and not an equality as that of Matth. 5. Be you perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect For in like manner these Catholiks doe answeare that those words I doe abhorre detest and abiure as heretical c. doe not import an equality but a similitude and that in common speech they doe onely signifie that I doe exceedingly detest that doctrine And so wee vsually say I hate him as the diuel I loue him as my brother not intending thereby to affirme that the one is in truth a Diuel or the other my brother 112 Now to omit the word murthered as though there were no mention at all made in the oath concerning the murthering of Princes and to speake onely of deposing them these men affirme that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other supposing that this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is not yet decided is in their iudgments a false and seditious proposition and that it hath some similitude with heresie not for that they thinke it to be in very deed hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense as some Catholikes doe take it but for that they doe constantly hold it to be of such a nature that it may be condemned by the Church for an hereticall proposition and then the maintainers thereof to be pâ—operly heretikes if deposing be taken in that sense as it is in this branch of the oath distinguished from depriuing For to
which doth attribute to the Pope that authoritie as certainly giuen him by Christ which at the most is disputable whether Christ hath giuen it him or no. 8. I do honour and reuerence in good truth Card. Bellarmine as also many other learned men of his Society and their singular learning I doe greatly admire but that their learning or authoritie ought to be so greatly esteemed of by Catholikes that whatsoeuer they thinke to be a point of faith it is presently to bee taken for a diuine Oracle and the contrarie opinion of other learned Catholikes who haue seene and examined all their grounds reasons and authorities is not to be accounted an opinion but an heresie and that in a matter of such importance which concerneth the dutifull obedience of euery Christian to God and Caesar this is that which I cannot take in good part And might not I pray you the Canonists who do vehemently defend the Popes direct power to dispose of all temporalls against Card. Bellarmine and others whom they are not afraide to call impios politicos wicked politicians h Alexander Carerius pretending thereby to strengthen the fortresse of the Catholike Church to confirme the immoueable rocke of S. Peter and to maintaine the Popes authoritie retort the very same inuectiue which my Aduersarie hath borrowed of Card. Bellarmine i Against Barclay cap. 1. and in the Epistle Dedicatory of his Schulckenius against me vpon Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doth vehemently impugne the aforesaid direct authoritie which the Canonists do yeelde vnto the Pope and with the same facilitie crie out with my Aduersary that he taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such Art and sleigth that whiles he fighteth against the Church hee pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authoritie yet he dedicateth his booke to Pope Sixtus the fift laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did c. And thus much concerning me 9. Now as touching the matter which I handle and the manner of my proceeding therein k Num. 6. Widdringtons speciall purpose saith my Aduersarie in this his late worke is to defend the new oath of allegiance and to confute all the chiefe arguments that haue beene made by any against the seuerall clauses thereof which neuerthelesse he meaneth no other waies to performe as he himselfe often protesteth but only by shewing probably that the said Oath may be taken by Catholikes and that nothing hath beene hitherto or can be obiected against it which hath not been or cannot be probably answered And from hence my Aduersary gathereth certaine admonitions to the Reader which as he saith are worthy to be noted 10. But before I come to set downe his worthy admonitions I thinke it fit to put thee in remembrance Curteous Reader what is the true state of the question betwixt vs concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and what was my chiefe intent in making that disputation of the Oath The maine question therefore betwixt me and these my Aduersaries as my Aduersarie T. F. also confesseth l In the end of his Preface is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which specially is denied in this new oath to wit whether it be a point of faith and not to be denied by any Catholike without note of heresie or errour that the Pope hath by Christ his institution power to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes for any crime whatsoeuer For whereas some very few late writers especially Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuites could not bee content to defend this doctrine for the Popes power call it temporall or spirituall as you will to depose Princes in a moderate manner but would needes take vpon them to make it a point of the Catholike faith and cleerely to demonstrate by the testimonie of holy Scriptures of sacred Councells and by inuincible reasons that Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successors such a temporall power ouer Soueraigne Kings and Princes a doctrine neither practised nor knowne by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and which hath beene a chiefe occasion why this Kingdome is departed from the obedience to the See Apostolike and to condemne all those Catholikes of heresie who do not runne with them in this their violent course when I seriously considered with my selfe what scandall this new doctrine maintained with such violence brought to Catholike Religion what danger to our Prince and Countrey and what great calamities and disgrace English Catholikes do daily suffer thereby as not being accounted true and loyall Subiects to their Prince euen according to the doctrine of those who are esteemed to bee the chiefe pillars of the Catholike Church but so long only as it shall please the Pope I thought my selfe bound by the duty which I do owe to the Catholike Religion to my Prince Country to take away as much as lieth in mee notwithstanding the manifold slaunders which I fore-saw some persons would therefore raise against mee the aforesaid scandals dangers and disgraces and to answer probably all the arguments which Card. Bellarmine hath from the chiefest Authors who haue handled this question collected to demonstrate that it is a certaine and infallible doctrine and the contrary not so much an opinion as an heresie that the Pope hath by Christ his institution authority to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions 11 Wherefore the present controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries is not at this time concerning the absolute proposition to wit whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose the reason why I doe not dispute of this absolute proposition I will declare beneath m Num. 78.79 but concerning the modall whether it be certaine without controuersie and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose as this Author T. F. following Card. Bellarmine and some few Iesuites will needes haue it to be and I with other Catholikes and the Kingdome of France as Petrus Pithaeus witnesseth n In Cod. libert Eccles Galliâ— doe vtterly deny the same And from hence it euidently followeth that although Card. Bellarmine should alledge an hundred Catholike Authors who doe affirme that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet if they doe not also affirme that it is certaine and to be beleeued as a point of faith that the Pope hath such a power they neither confirme his opinion nor gaine-say mine concerning the present controuersie which is now in hand And thus much concerning the matter and manner of my Apologie for the right of Princes Now touching my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegeance although in very deede hitherto I haue not seene any sufficient reason to condemne the sayd oath as vnlawfull and
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
Priest but at the command of the Emperour and I also say the very same But S. Bernard doth not say that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword per se but only in some sort to be drawne forth for the Church not by the Church c. From which words it is plainely gathered that the materiall sword or temporall power is according to S. Bernard subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidons in spiritualls not in temporalls to be commanded in some case by the Priest as he is a Priest but not to be drawne forth or vsed by a Priest as he is a Priest but as he is a temporall Prince or a publike or priuate souldier In like manner I say with Pope Boniface that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but Pope Boniface doth not say that the sword is per se vnder the sword and the temporall power is per se subiect to spirituall authoritie and therefore seeing that hee doth imitate S. Bernards words as Card. Bellarmine here affirmeth he is to be vnderstood in that sense as S. Bernard vnderstood them to wit that the sword is vnder the sword in some sort and the temporall power subiect to the spirituall in some sort to be drawne foorth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church c. as I now declared 14. Thirdly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the Church hath not by the law of God power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good he speaketh too ambiguously For the law of God doth not command Ecclesiasticall men to vse with their own hand the materiall sword neither doth it so forbid them but that his lawfull for them in some cases to vse it also with their owne hand But neuerthelesse according to S. Bernards opinion Christ gaue both the swordes to the Church and by this he gaue her power to vse the materiall sword in that manner as doth beseem her to wit by the seruice or hands of others in directing Secular Princes that they draw it forth or put it in the scabard as it is expedient to the honour of God and the saluation of Christian people 15. But my words are very plaine and no whit ambiguous I say that the Church taking the Church not materially for all the members of the Church but for Churchmen formally as they are Churchmen or which is all one for the Church as it consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power are according to S. Bernards doctrine commanded not to draw forth or vse with their owne hands the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good For S. Bernards words are plaine why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which thou wast once not only counselled but cōmanded to put vp into the scabard c. But if the Pope becom a temporall Prince or a Priest do lawfully becom a Soldier to fight either in his own defence or in the defence of others which Christ did not forbid although the Church in some cases hath forbidden it neither I nor S. Bernard doe denie that the Pope as he is a temporall Prince or a Priest as he is a lawfull Souldier hath power to vse with their owne hands the materiall sword Neither did S. Bernard euer grant that the Pope as he is Pope or a Priest as he is a Priest or which is all one by his spirituall or Priestly authority hath power to draw foorth or to vse with his owne hands the materiall sword although the Pope by his spirituall power may direct and command a temporall Prince to draw it foorth and vse it when the necessitie of the Church shall require which onely D. Schulckenius in this paragraph doth affirme 16. Fourthly that is false saith D. Schulckenius g Pag. 387. which Widdrington affirmeth that the materiall sword in that onely sense doth belong to the Church because Secular Princes being children of the Church are bound to fight in defence of the Church their mother For S. Bernard doth grant much more to the Ecclesiasticall Prince when he saith Therefore it is also thine to wit the materiall sword And beneath Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword are the Churches but the materiall sword is to bee drawen foorth for the Church and the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but truly at the becke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour Where S. Bernard doth not only signifie that Souldiers or Princes are bound to draw foorth the sword for the Church but also at the becke or direction of the Priest that is with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperour 17. But anie man who readeth ouer but sleightly my answer in that place will easily perceiue that this is a meere cauill and also a plaine vntruth for that in expresse words I doe affirme that Secular Princes and Souldiers are according to S. Bernard to draw foorth and vse the materiall sword for the necessity of the Church at the becke counsell direction yea and command of the Priest which is as much as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth S. Bernard to say although S. Bernard did expressely distinguish betwixt becke and command at the becke saith he of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour whereby it is manifest that S. Bernard did not account becke and command to be all one and consequently hee did not approoue the same subordination to be betwixt Secular Princes and the Priest in vsing the materiall sword as is betwixt Souldiers and the Emperour For albeit S. Bernard by the name of becke did not onely vnderstand aduise and counsell which Christian Princes in all their weightie affaires concerning the Law of God and Christian Religion ought to demand of learned Priests and who are skilfull in the Law of God and Christian Religion but also a command to fight and vse the materiall sword in defence of the Church and Christian Religion to the obseruing of which command Christian Princes may as also I sayd by Ecclesiasticall censures bee compelled yet this command being a declaratiue command which doth onely declare a former command of God and nature and doth not make a new bond but onely declare and signifie a former obligation may rather be called a beckening and signifying that Christian Princes are by the Law of God bound in that case to draw foorth fight and vse the materiall sword then a true proper and constitutiue command which doth not onely signifie but also induce a new bond or obligation 18. And in this sense not onely Ioannes Parisiensis whom I cited before h Num. 8. doth vnderstand those words of S. Bernard at the becke indeede of the Priest but also our learned Countri-man Alexander of Hales
the rest of the Apostles is according to the intention of Christ 29. But truely although there may be alleadged some probable congruities wherefore our Sauiour might grant some speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption to S. Peter whom he had chosen to be the first and principall head and gouernour of his Church rather then to the rest of the Apostles as likewise the Diuines doe yeeld probable congruities wherefore God almighty might giue to the B. Virgin Mary whom he had chosen to be the mother of his immaculate Sonne a speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption from originall sinne but whether he did grant that priuiledge or no it cannot certainely be proued neuerthelesse for my owne part I doe not see any probable likelihood that our Sauiour should giue to the rest of the Apostles and much lesse to all Cleargie men any speciall priuiledge of exemption from all ciuill subiection to temporall Princes And therefore the most part of the Schoole Diuines yea also and of the Iesuites themselues doe hould that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes in all those thinges which are not repugnant to their state nor to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and consequently that they are not exempted from all subiection and obedience and from the directiue or commanding power of Secular Princes but that they are bound not onely by force of reason but also by vertue of the law and of their due obedience to obserue such ciuill lawes 30 A fourth reason which Card. Bellarmine bringeth m In tract contra Barcl cap. 3. pag. 50 wherefore he recalled his former opinion and why the Apostles were not de iure subiect to temporall Princes is because they are appointed by God Princes ouer all the earth as wee read in the 44. Psalme For although that principality was spirituall not temporall yet it was true principallity and farre more noble then temporall principallitie But this reason is not sufficient for as I obserued in my Apologie n nu 68. seq the same man being considered diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour subiect in temporalls and supreame in spirituals and contrariwise neither is temporall subiection repugnant to spirituall authority nor temporall authority repugnant to spiritual subiection neither from hence doth it follow that either temporall authority it selfe is subiect to spirituall power or spirituall power subiect to temporall authority but onely that the same man who is superiour in temporalls is subiect in spiritualls and who is superiour in spiritualls is subiect in temporalls as the same man who is a Musition may be subiect and seruant to a Physition or contrariwise and yet it doth not from hence follow that Musicke it selfe is subiect to Physicke or contrariwise 31 And if Card. Bellarmine doe answere as he doth in his Schulckenius n Pag. 172. that when the powers are equall it may perchance fall out that the same compared diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour but if the powers be vnequall and one subordained to an other as are spirituall and ciuill power it cannot fall out that the same man be subiect to him who is his superiour this answere is also as insufficient as the former First for that the temporall power it selfe is not subordained to the spirituall as I haue shewed before for otherwise temporall Princes should not onely in spiritualls but also in mere temporalls be subiect to spirituall Pastours as if Musicke it selfe be subiect to Physicke a Musition as he is a Musition and in all thinges belonging to Musicke should be subiect to Physicke and consequently to a Physition as he is a Physition Secondly for that it is the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and also of the Iesuites that Cleargie men are subiect to the directiue temporall power or command of temporall Princes 32 Thirdly for that there is no repugnance but rather a necessary consequence that spirituall Princes not as they are spirituall Princes but as they are true parts and members of the temporall common wealth should be subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes for euery member saiâ—h Card. Bellarmine o Liâ— de Monachis cap. 19. ought to be subiect to the head and Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and parts of the ciuill common wealth as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth in an other place p Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. and the King is head of the politike or ciuill body as also in his Schulckenius he expresly affirmeth q Pag. 339. Fourthly for that Card. Bellarmine is also now of opinion at least wise he was when he wrote against D. Barckley that it is probable that the Priests of the old law who had true spirituall power and were true spirituall Princes were subiect to Kinges and therfore for this reason to recall his former opinion and especially to condemne it as improbable were both to contradict himselfe and also to condemne of temeritie the learnedst Schoole Diuines of this age and also of his Societie 33 These be all the principall reasons which I can finde in Card. Bellarmine for which he was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable which how probable they be or rather very insufficient to moue such a learned man as Card. Bellarmine is to forsake the Schole Diuines and to fly to the Canonists who as pope Pius the fift sincerely confessed r Nauar. super cap. non liceat Papaâ— 12. q. 2 55. 3â— nu 6 doe attribute to the Pope more authoritie then is fitting and to censure so rigorously and rashly the learnedst Catholikes of this age and also of his owne Societie of temeritie I remit to the iudgement of the discreete Reader as also to consider whether reason or affection to aduance the Popes authoritie moued him not onely to recall his former opinion but also to condemne it as improbable 33 Lastly that the Reader may haue some knowledge of the true state of the question concerning the authority of spirituall Pastors to exempt Clergy men from the power of Secular Princes for that some Diuines are of opinion that from the exemption of Clergy men a strong Argument may bee drawne to pâ—oue that a spirituall Prince or Pastor hath power to depose or depriue a temporall Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls of his temporall Kingdome and Dominions First therefore the true state of the question betwixt mee and my Aduersaries is not concerning the exemption of Cleargie men by way of command for I doe willingly grant that a spirituall Prince or Pastor as hee is a spirituall Pastor hath power to command a Christian Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls not to exercise his temporall power in some cases if the necessity of the Church or Christian Religion doth require it ouer the persons of Clergy men who are his temporall Subiects so that if a secular Prince should disobey the lawfull command of his spirituall
Pastors in such sort that Christian Princes are not onely bound to obey the command of their spirituall Pastors in things which doe concerne Christian faith and religion but also if they be disobedient they may with spirituall punishments he punished and compelled therevnto Thirdly we doe also agree in this that Christian Princes are bound to obey the commanding power of spirituall Pastours not only in those things which of their owne nature are Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but also in things temporall when by accident they become spirituall in so much that a spirituall Pastor hath authoritie to command a temporall Prince to vse or not vse his temporall power when it is necessarie or hurtfull to Catholike faith and religion but this is nothing else then that temporall Princes in things spirituall for whether they be per se and of their owne nature or onely by accident spirituall it little importeth are subiect to the commanding power of spirituall Pastors as likewise all temporall causes and crimes whether of their owne nature or onely by accident they become temporall are subiect to the commanding and coerciue power of temporall Princes 2 But the controuersie betwixt me and Card Bellarmine is concerning two things the first is concerning the commanding power to wit whether temporall Princes are subiect to the commanding power of spirituall Pastors not onely in things spirituall and in temporall when they become spirituall but also in meere temporall things for this is properly temporall power taking temporall power in abstracto to be subiect to the spirituall For as a Musician can not truly be said to be subiect as he is a Musician and in all things belonging to Musicke to a Physition as he is a Physition for that Musicke is not per se and of it owne nature referred to Physicke and if Musicke were per se and of it owne nature subiect to Physicke a Musician as he is a Musician and in all things belonging to Musicke should be subiect to a Physician as he is a Physician for which cause a Shipwright as he is a Shipwright hath intrinsecall reference to a Nauigator for that the Art of making ships is per se and of it owne nature ordayned for nauigation So also if the temporall power among Christians be per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power it must follow that temporall Princes who are Christians are as they are temporall Princes and in all things belonging to temporall power subiect to spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours And if temporall Princes who be Christians are not subiect as they are temporall Princes to spirituall Pastors as they are spirituall Pastors the temporall power among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power 3 The second thing which is in controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastors to wit whether temporall Princes are subiect to the coerciue power of spirituall Pastors in such sort that spirituall Pastors especially the Pope who is the supreme Pastour of all Christians haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes to dispose of all their temporalls and to punish them temporally or with all kinde of temporall punishments in case they will not obey their iust command And this is the maine point and principall scope at which both the Canonists who hold that the Pope hath directly power in temporals in habit although the vse they haue committed to temporall Princes and also the Diuines who hold that hee hath onely indirectly that is in order to spirituall good power in temporalls doe chiefly aime Now concerning these two points there be three different opinions of Catholikes 4 The first opinion is of the Canonists who holding that the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head doth consist both of temporall and spirituall power doe consequently hold that all Christian Princes not only as they are Christians but also as they are temporall Princes are in all temporall causes subiect to the commanding power and in all temporall punishments subiect also to the coerciue power of the Pope whom they make the supreme both temporall and spirituall Monarch of the world and to haue directly both temporall and spirituall power although the vse exercise and execution of his temporall power he hath out of the territories of the Church committed to Secular Princes as to his Vice-Royes Vicegerents or Deputies and this doctrine some Lawyers held to be so certaine that they were not afraid to condemne the contrarie as hereticall for which they are worthily taxed by Coverruvias d In Regula peccatū 2. part Relect. §. 9. num 7. of great temeritie But with this opinion for that it is commonly reiected by all Diuines and confuted also by Card Bellarmine himselfe e Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. a cap. 2. I will not at this time intermeddle 5 The second opinion is of many Schoole-Diuines especially of these later times who although they seeme greatly to mislike the Canonists opinion in that the Canonists hold the Pope as Pope to haue directly not only spirituall but also temporall power and to be both a temporall Monarch and also a spirituall Prince and Pastour of the whole Christian world yet in effect they doe giue as full and ample authoritie to the Pope ouer Christian Princes as the Canonists do for whatsoeuer the Canonists affirme that the Pope can directly effect by his temporall power the same doe the Diuines affirme that he can effect indirectly and in order to spirituall good by his spirituall power And therefore although they will not grant that the Pope hath formally temporall power but only spirituall yet they grant that this spirituall power of the Pope is virtually and in effect temporall and that therefore the Pope by his spirituall power can in order to spirituall good depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes dispose of all their temporalls punish them with all kinde of temporall punishments and finally whatsoeuer temporall Princes can by their temporall power doe for the temporall good they affirme that the Pope by his spirituall power can doe for the spirituall good Yea some of them doe so extend this spirituall good and spirituall harme taking spirituall harme not only for spirituall crimes as heresie Apostacie and such like but also for all temporall crimes as are drunkennesse fornication and the like that they giue a more ample power to the Pope to depriue Princes of their kingdomes then by temporall lawes is vsually granted to temporall Princes to depriue their subiects of their lands who for whoredome drunkennesse and many other temporall crimes can not vsually by the lawes of any Christian kingdome bee depriued of their lands and possessions 6. The third opinion is of many other learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers whom I cited before f Part. 1. per totum who although they agree with