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.
temporall Iurisdiction which is proper only to a temporall Prince and not to obserue due order but to make a confusion betwixt sword and sword betwixt the spirituall and temporall power which temporall power is only in spirituall corrections and not in temporall punishments subiect to the constraint of the temporall power 28 And therefore well said our most learned Countryman Alexander of Hales t 3. part q. 40. memb 5. q. 4. cited by me before that the subiection of Kings and Emperours to the Pope is in spirituall not corporall punishment according as it is said 2a. q. 7. that it belongeth to Kings to exercise corporall punishment and to Priests to vse spirituall correction Wherevpon S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperour Arcadius and did forbid him to enter into the Church For as an earthly Iudge not without cause beareth the sword as it is said Rom 13. so Priests doe not without cause receiue the keyes of the Church he beareth the sword to the punishment of malefactors and commendation of the good these haue keyes to the excluding of excommunicated persons and reconciling of them who are penitent Expound therefore A King is to be punished only by God that is with materiall punishment and againe A King hath no man to iudge his doings that is to inflict corporall punishment and a little beneath A King saith Alexander doth excell 1. Pet 2. true it is in his order to wit to inflict corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but only God what can be spoken more plainly 29 And by this you easily see the weaknes of D. Schulckenius his argument and how cunningly with generall and ambiguous words he would delude his Reader A temporall Prince saith he ought to refer publike peace to the eternall peace and folâ—estie of him selfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And what then And as hee ought to subiect temporall peace to eternall peace so he ought to subiect his temporall power to the spirituall power But how in what manner in what causes in what punishments temporall power ought to bee subiect to spirituall power D. Schulc cunningly concealeth Temporall power to be subiect to spirituall if wee will speake properly and in abstracto doth signifie that a temporall Prince is in all temporall affaires subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastors And if by those generall words D. Schulckenius meaneth this he falleth into the Canonists opinion whose doctrine in this point learned Victoria u in Relect. 1. de potest Eccles num 2. 3. is not afraid to condemn as manifestly false and who being poore themselues in learning and riches to flatter the Pope gaue him this direct power and dominion in temporalls For the truth is that temporall Princes in temporall affaires are not subiect to any besides God alone which is the receiued doctrine of the ancient Fathers The sense therefore of that proposition must be that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in temporalls subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope But what then wherefore he ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power c. Still you see he speaketh ambiguously and in generall words the sense whereof if hee had declared you would presently haue perceiued the weaknesse of his argument for if he meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed in spiritualls and in things belonging to Christian Religion and corrected with spirituall punishments by the Pope this I easily grant him and so he proueth nothing against me but if hee meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed by the Pope in temporalls and corrected by him with temporall punishments this consequence I vtterly denie for this were to confound all good order and to vsurpe temporall Iurisdiction as I declared before And thus much concerning Card Bellarmines first argument my answer and D. Schulckenius his Reply to the same Chap. 6. Wherein is examined the second argugument taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church 1. THe second argument which Card Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit one Church Rom 12. 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected and one dependeth on the other but it can not rightly be said that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spirituall and are subiect to them 2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered before b Cap. 2. that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes being diuerse waies considered doe make two totall and not onely one totall body or common-wealth For as they are referred to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pastour to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals they make one totall body or common-wealth to wit the Catholike Church which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals as all members are subiect to the head they make another body or common-wealth to wit earthly kingdomes as before I declared more at large And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false 3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof and to shew most plainely that not onely his Maior proposition as I haue prooued before but also his Minor is apparantly false I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected either immediately or mediately to the head vpon whom they all depend yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other there is no man so ignorant that will affirme for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other nor one arme vpon the other nor one shoulder vpon the other but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues or to other members to which they adhere May it not I pray you by the same manner of arguing and by the very same argument be concluded thus The armes or euery man are members of one body but in euery bodie the members are connected and depending one vpon the other but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right and is subiect vnto it Who would not skorn such foolish arguments 4. To this answer Card. Bellarmine c In Tract contra Bâ—rcl
dependeth vpon the other now his argument proceedeth thus Members doe depend vpon the head the Pope is head of the Church therefore Kings who are members of the Church doe depend vpon the Pope which are two distinct arguments yet both of them fallacious and insufficient to proue that the temporall power it selfe or which is all one that temporall Kings in temporall causes are subiect to the Pope as you haue seene before 9. Thirdly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that the assertion of D. Barclay comparing these two powers to two shoulders of the Church which are connected to one head who is Christ doth appertaine to the heresie of this time which affirmeth that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church and that D. Barclay doth of his owne accord grant thus much M. Iohn Barclay answereth that Card. Bellarmine doth in this both slander D. Barclay and also maketh the Church and Pope odious to Princes For what Protestant reading this may not with very good reason conclude that Catholikes according to Card. Bellarmines doctrin when they say that the Pope is the visible head of the Church and that this is a point of Catholike-faith doe vnderstand that he is head and Gouernour not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill causes what wise men of this world will not relate these sayings to Princes and what Prince can without indignation here them Neither did D. Barclay euer make any doubt but that the Pope Christs Vicar in earth was head in Ecclesiasticall causes neither did Catholike faith euer teach that he was head in ciuill causes Only Christ is head of Popes and Kings the chiefe head I say of the Church Whereupon S. Austin doth affirme f In serm de remiss pec refertur 1. q. 1. can Vt eui denter that an excommunicated person is out of the Church and out of the body whereof Christ is the head 10. And therefore that similitude betweene the soule and body compounding one man and the spirituall and ciuill power compounding one Church or rather one Christian common wealth or Christian world is no fit similitude and it is wrongfully ascribed to S. Gregorie Nazianzene by Card. Bellarmine as I shewed before g Cap. 3. for that the soule is as the forme and the body as the matter compounding one essentiall thing which is man but the ciuill power is not as the matter nor the spirituall as the forme compounding one essentiall body which is the Church of Christ but if we will haue them to compound one totall body which is the Church taking the Church for the Christian world consisting both of the temporal and spirituall power which are in Christians whereof Christ or God and not the Pope is the head they are onely integrall to vse the termes of Philosophers and not essentiall parts neither doe they compound one essentiall but only one integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessary that one part doth depend vpon the other as hath beene now conuinced but all must of necessitie depend vpon the head although in an essentiall compound one part must of necessitie depend vpon the other for that in such a compound one part must bee as the matter and the other as the forme as I declared before 11. Wherefore the spirituall and ciuill power in the Church taking the Church for the Christian world containing in it both powers or which is all one for the company of all Christians in whome are both powers or both subiections are not like to the soule and body which are essentiall parts of man but they are as two shoulders or two sides which are only integrall parts of mans body both which powers although each of them in their kinde bee a visible head the one of temporals the other of spirituals and in that respect doe formally make two totall bodies to wit earthly kingdomes whereof temporall Princes are the head and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the chiefe visible head yet they are connected to one celestiall and inuisible head which is Christ in which respect they make one totall body whereof Christ onely and not the Pope is head which may bee called the Christian world consisting of earthly kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ 12. Neither is it true that these two powers be of so diuerse a kinde that they cannot be well compared to two shoulders for both of them are powers and in that respect of the same kinde and as powers they are compared to two shoulders And why may they not bee aptly compared to two shoulders seeing that there is nothing more strong and more neere to the head in the Christian common-wealth Neither is it materiall that one is a more strong shoulder then the other for in mans body the right arme is stronger then the left and yet one is not more an arme then the other May not I pray you two pillars of a diuerse kinde one of brasse the other of marble bee aptly compared one with the other in that both of them are pillars The temporall and the ciuill power or Kings as Kings and hauing temporall authoritie and Bishops as Bishops and hauing spirituall power are as two visible pillars which doe sustaine the edifice of the Christian world or common-wealth the one in temporalls the other in spirituals they are as two shoulders which as in mans body are next vnder the head and all the other inferiour members doe depend vpon them so also they are next vnder God the head of both and all other inferiour members of the Christian world doe depend vpon them nay being compared to the inferiour members of the Christian world they are also as two visible and ministeriall heads from whence as from the head of mans body which is the roote beginning and foundation of all sense and motion in all the inferiour parts all spirituall and temporall directions Lawes and punishments doe proceed 13. And truely if D. Barclay must bee taxed of heresie for comparing the temporall and spirituall power in the Church or Christian world for now the Church and Christian world which consisteth of both powers is taken for all one to two shoulders and for affirming that Christ only is the chiefe celestial and invisible head of both these powers and that Kings and Popes are two ministeriall heads thereof although both of them are also principall in their owne kinde and in the nature of a visible head then must Hugo de S. Victore be taxed of heresie when he compareth i Lib. 2. de Saâ—ram p. 2. ca. 3. these two powers to two sides affirming that Lay-men who haue care of earthly things are the left side of this body and Clergie men who do minister spirituall things are the right and that earthly power hath the King for the head and the spirituall hath the Pope for head Lo heere two sides and consequently two shoulders and two
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
A CLEARE SINCERE AND MODEST confutation of the vnsound fraudulent and intemperate Reply of T. F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English IESVITE Wherein ALSO ARE CONFVTED THE chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine hath made against WIDDRINTONS Apologie for the right or Soueraigntie of temporall PRINCES BY Roger Widdrington an English Catholike LVKE 6. Benedicite maledicentibus vobis orate pro calumniantibus vos Blesse them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you IHS Permissu Superiorum 1616. THE CONTENTS of this Treatise The Epistle to English Catholikes Wherein 1. IT is shewed first that it is not safe for the consciences of Catholikes to adhere alwaies to the Pope and neglect the command of their temporall Prince 2 That if the Pope should exact from Catholikes that obedience which is due onely to their temporall Prince they should by obeying the Pope disobey the command of Christ and be truly traitours to their Prince 3 That it is possible for Popes to challenge such an obedience and that de facto Pope Boniface did challenge it of the King and inhabitants of France 4 That it is probable that the Pope that now is in condemning the late Oath of Allegeance and in challenging a power to depose temporall Princes demaundeth of English Catholikes the foresaid temporall Allegiance and vsurpeth that authoritie which Christ hath not giuen him 5 That although it should be granted that it is probable that the Pope hath such an authoritie yet so long as it is but probable it is titulus sine re a title which can neuer be put in execution without manifest disobedience to God and iniustice to temporall Princes 6 That the Pope neither is the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes nor as yet by any authenticall instrument hath defined that he hath power to depose temporall Princes and that therefore it is probable that he hath no such power 7 That the manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning my bookes and commanding me to purge my selfe and the fallacious dealing of my Aduersaries doth clearely shew that they in their consciences are not perswaded that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith 8 The causes of the beginning and increase of this doctrine are briefely insinuated and that if all temporall Princes would vse the like meanes to defend their Soueraigntie this controuersie would be quickly at an end 9 That Catholikes are bound to read and examine this question otherwise their ignorance will be willfull damnable and inexcusable 10 That they may lawfully read my bookes notwithstanding the Popes or rather Card. Bellarmines prohibition to the contrary and that I deserued not at their hands such vncharitable words and deeds for the loue and paines I haue taken for their sakes The Preface to the Reader Wherein M. r Fitzherberts Preface is confuted the matter which Widdrington handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truly probable and to be neither preiudiciall to his Maiesties seruice nor to the consciences of Catholikes and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against that rule of the Law brought by Widdrington In dubijs melior est conditio possidentis In doubts or disputable causes the condition of him who hath possession is to be preferred are confuted The first Part. wherein The authorities and testimonies of those learned Catholikes which Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation brought against the Popes power to depose Princes and which M. r Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer and for answer to them remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer are briefely and perspicuously examined and the Replyes which Doctor Schulckenius maketh against them are confuted Chap. 1. Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius an Abbot and famous writer of the order of S. Benedict is examined and the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against it are ouerthrowne Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer and Classicall Doctor is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are confuted Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctor of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against him are proued to be insufficient Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. r Doctor Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is briefely examined Chap. 5. Wherein are set downe the authorities of many English Catholikes who haue publikely declared their opinions as M. r George Blackwell M. r William Warmington M. r Iohn Barclay M. r William Barret Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor Cole both the Harpesfields Mr Edward Rishton M. r Henry Orton M. r Iames Bosgraue M. r Iohn Hart M. Iames Bishop related by Mr. Camden and those thirteene learned and vertuous Priests and most of them as yet liuing whose names I related in my Theologicall Disputation and whose protestation which I set downe verbatim in my Appendix to Suarez must needes suppose that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes as out of Suarez I conuince in this chapter Chap. 6. Wherein the authority of the Kingdome and State of France is largely debated the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against Petrus Pithaeus and Bochellus are confuted and Sigebert is defended from Schisme of which he is wrongfully taxed by Card. Baronius and D. Schulckenius The second part wherein All the principall arguments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians wheron Mr. Fitzherbert and all the other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes doe chiefely ground that doctrine together with the Replies which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same vnion and subordination are exactly examined Chap. 1. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is declared Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from those words of S. Paul Wee being many are one body in Christ to prooue that the temporall spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head is answered and Card. Bellarmine conuinced of manifest contradiction Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man which is so often vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body as the body and soule doe make one man is declared and cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to make nothing for his purpose Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes concerning this poynt are rehearsed Chap. 5. Wherein the first argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from
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
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
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
authoritie And therefore notwithstanding all the exceptions which Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius do take against Ioannes Parisiensis we haue the testimonie of this learned Catholike and famous Schole-Diuine that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes by his sentence which is the only question at this time betweene me and Card. Bellarmine Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. Doctour Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is breifly examined 1. THe fourth testimony which I broght both in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 28. and also in my Apologieb was of Mr. Doctour Barclay a most learned man and yet no more learned then religious howsoeuer some falsly and vnchristianly do slaunder him in his booke de Regno printed at Paris in the yeare 1600. with priueledge of the most Christian King of France where he affirmeth that Kings who doe omit or are negligent to keepe Gods commandements to worship him religiously and to vse all care and diligence that their subiects do not reuolt from true Religion and fall into Idolatrie Iudaisme or heresie are to be iudged by God alone because only to God they are subiect speaking of temporall iudgement and subiection although the Pope being the supreme Prince and vniuersall Pastour of the Chuch hath power to condemn with spirituall iudgement all kings and Princes offending against Gods law as they are Christians and children of the Church and to deliuer them to inuisible tormentours to be punished with the rod of the inuisible spirit and with the two edged sword of Excommunication 2. But Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay c Per totum little regardeth his authority and now in his Sculckenius he affirmeth d Pag. 110. ad num 28. that Catholikes will make no more account of Barclay then they do of Marsilius de Padua and of my selfe an easie answer to shift off the authoritie of any learned Catholike And againe who doth not maruaile saith D. Schulckenius that seeing Card. Bellarmine hath in this point clearely and soundly after his accustomed manner confuted Barclay Widdrington durst not only aduenture to write against him without sufficient ground but also to oppose the said Barclay as a testimonie of truth against Card. Bellarmine 3. But notwithstanding this glorious brag of D. Schulckenius so highly commending himselfe and his cleare and sound confuting of Barclay after his accustomed manner it cannot be denied but that Doctour Barclay was a very learned man and liued and died like a vertuous Catholike and 〈◊〉 hee was in times past as Posseuine also relateth e In verbo Gulielmus Barclaius a Counseller to the Duke of Lorraine and Master of Requests and in the vniuersity of Mussepont a Professour of the Canon and Ciuill Law and also Deane and that his booke was printed at Paris with a speciall priueledge of the most Christian King of France and is by Posseuine related among other approued bookes and no exception taken by him against it And therefore who doth not maruell that D. Schulckenius durst aduenture so bouldly to affirme f Part. 1. cap. 2. num 2. that Catholikes will make no more account of D. Barclay a famous and learned Catholike then of Marsilius of Padua a known and condemned heretike although not for this point touching the Popes power to depose Princes but for other his assertions which I related in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez Wherefore although perchance some Catholikes doe with Card. Bellarmine make small account of Doctour Barclaies authoritie as also they would make of the authoritie of any other Catholike were he neuer so vertuous or learned that should write against them in this point neuerthelesse other Catholikes doe greatly regard his authoritie for the aforesaid cause and they are also perswaded that they haue as probable reasons to thinke that he did not write partially in fauour of Princes or any other person as that Card. Bellarmine did not write partially in fauour of the Pope and some other of his followers in fauour of him and their Order 4 Neither hath D. Schulckenius in very truth any great cause so greatly to vaunt of his cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay for that both his sonne Mr. Iohn Barclay a learned Catholike hath most clearely shewed the said confutation to be very vnsound to whom as yet no Reply hath been made and yet his booke was printed at Paris by the Kings Printer three yeeres since and also the Bishop of Rochester a learned Protestant hath out of Catholike grounds conuinced D. Schulckenius his brag of the cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay to be but vaine wherefore let Card Bellarmine first make a cleare and sound Reply to the aforesaid Answers and then he may haue some cause to boast that he hath clearely and soundly confuted D. Barclay In the meane time it can not be denyed but that notwithstanding all the clamours of our Aduersaries this doctrine which doth now so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes is and hath euer been impugned by vertuous and learned Catholikes Chap. 5. Wherein the authorities of Mr George Blackwell and of many other English Priests are at large debated 1. THe first testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 9. to which D. Schulckenius doth not answer was of Mr. George Blackwell a vertuous and learned Catholike Priest and once the Archipraesbyter of the English Seminarie Priests who maintayned euen vntill death for not halfe a quarter of an howre before hee dyed he confirmed the same the oath to be lawfull and that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes to which also besides Mr. William Warmington in his moderate defence of the Oath Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Card Bellarmine in defence of his Father printed at Paris by the Kings Printer and Mr. William Barres in his booke de Iure Regio and many other learned Catholikes of this Kingdome both Priests and Lay-men whose names for iust causes I forbare to set downe for that they had not shewed themselues by publike writings I added the testimonie of those thirteene Reuerend and learned English Priests with whom twice thirtie others would haue ioyned if their protestation had not been made so suddenly who to giue assurance of their loyaltie to the late Queene Elizabeth did by a publike instrument written in parchment professe and made it knowne to all the Christian world that Shee being at that time excommunicated by name and depriued by the sentence of Pope Pius the fifth of hir Regall power and authoritie had neuertheles as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer them and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessours euer had And that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced by the Pope against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions which would not forsake the defence of
Hir and Hir Dominions they thought themselues not onely bound in câ—â—â—cience not to obey this or any such like Censure but also did promise to yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls 2 Now it is euident that this their protestation which I did at large set downe in my Appendix to Suarez b Part. 2. sec 1. can no way be iustified but vpon supposall that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Queene For if hee had authoritie to depose Hir Shee being then by the Popes sentence depriued of all hir Regall authoritie power and Soueraigntie could not haue as they professed as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer theÌ„ and all the Subiects of the Realme as any of hir Predecessours euer had before Neither also could they although Shee had not been then deposed lawfully promise as out of Suarez I will convince beneath c Num 7. 8. that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions they would neuerthelesse yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls thinking themselues bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like Censure vnlesse they did suppose that the Pope had no power to depose hir Maiestie or to absolue hir Subiects from their obedience 3 And if perchance any of those Priests should now be of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to excuse his former protestation should answer that hee onely intended to acknowledge hir Maiestie to be at that time Queene and to reigne de facto but not de iure besides that he should shew himselfe to be an egregious dissembler equiuocatour and deluder both of hir Maiestie and also of his Holinesse and should therefore deserue to be greatly punished both for deluding the State in a matter of so great weight and also for bringing Catholike Religion in obloquie among Protestants by such detestable dissimulation not to call it flat lying and cosoning which ought to be abhorred of all men â—â—â—t especially Catholike Priests who both by their words and deeds ought to be a patterne to others of Christian sinceritie this Answer can not stand with the words which he protested 4 For first marke the Preamble to their Protestation which clearely confuteth the aforesaid answere Whereas say they it hath pleased our dread Soueraigne Lady to take some notice of the faith and loyaltie of vs her naturall borne Subiects Secular Priests as it appeareth in the late Proclamation and of her Prince-like clemencie hath giuen a sufficient earnest of some mercifull fauour toward vs being all subiect by the lawes of the Realme to death by our returne into the Country after our taking the Order of Priesthood since the first yeere of hir Maiesties reigne and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegiance thereby to be assured of our fidelitie to hir Maiesties Person Crowne Estate and dignitie Wee whose names are vnderwritten in most humble wise prostrate at hir Maiesties feete doe acknowledge our selues infinitely bound vnto hir Maiestie therefore and are most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes First therefore we acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessors euer had and further we protest c. 5 Now were it not an intollerable deluding and mockerie for any of those Priests this Preamble considered to affirme that by the aforesaid words hee did onely intend to acknowledge her Maiesty to bee Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure was this the notice that her Maiesty tooke of the faith of Secular Priests rather then of Iesuites and did her Maiesty by those words and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegeance thereby to bee assured of our fidelitie to her Maiesties person Crowne Estate and Dignitie demand of them that thay should acknowledge her to be Queene onely de facto but not de iure And can Catholike Priests of other Countries giue to their Soueraignes no other assurance of their loyalty then onely to acknowledge them to bee their Kings and to raigne ouer them de facto but not de iure as these Priests did acknowledge themselues to bee most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point vnto her Maiesty as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes No man could make doubt but that shee was Queene and did raigne de facto and so much the whole Christian world and her sworne enemies could not but acknowledge So that according to this shamelesse answer those Priests did giue no other assurance of their loyaltie to Queene Elizabeth then any man might giue to a knowen and manifest vsurper and by those words to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraignty as any her Predecessours euer had did acknowledge her to haue no other power and authoritie then any knowen vsurper hath and which her knowen enemies and who accounted her no lawfull Queene would also acknowledge her to haue that is to be Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure 6. Secondly although one may truely acknowledge an vsurper to be King and to raigne de facto for that this doth onely imply an act fact or possession which may bee without any right at all yet no man can truely acknowledge that an vsurper or who is King de facto onely and not de iure hath authority which doth import a rightfull and lawfull power to raigne and much lesse to haue as full authoritie and power as euer any his Predecessours euer had who were Kings and raigned not onely de facto but also de iure or which is all one did both actually raigne and also had full power and authority to raigne 5 Thirdly not onely the aforesayd acknowledgement that her Maiestie being at that time depriued by the Pope had neuerthelesse as full power and authoritie as any her Predecessours euer had before doth necessarily suppose that the Pope had no authoritie to depriue her but also although shee had not beene at that time depriued by the Pope the other clause of their protestation which contained a promise to obey her in all temporal causes and to defend her c. accounting it their dutie so to doe notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie or euerie one borne within her Maiesties Dominions that would not forsake the aforesayd defence of her Maiestie c. thinking themselues not bound in conscience to obey this or any such like Censure doth necessarily suppose and imply the same to wit that the Pope had no authoritie to depose her which Fa. Suarez arguing against the like clause contained in the new Oath of Allegeance doth most cleerely conuince whose
against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
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
to the Germans or French by the Popes sole authoritie but by the consent suffrages and authoritie also of the people which neuerthelesse are principall authorities which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Finally others although they be of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for heresie or which is a farre different question to declare them to be deposed for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause but doth absolutely in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good extend this pretended authoritie 19. Neither is it true that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion as M. Fitzherbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affirmeth I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua for that not onely his booke but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes And although I had vrged his authority in that sort as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe not for that I thinke the authority of an heretike barely considered by it selfe to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith but for that Marsilius writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies he should by Catholike Authours who write of heresies as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others bee particularly taxed of those heresies and yet his doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes which was the principall subiect of his booke should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous for this is a forcible argument that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine 20. True also it is that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion for that hee vehemently impugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes both against Pope Gregorie the seuenth and also Paschalis the second calling it a noueltie not to say an heresie and answering as he saith with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power But Sigebert saith D. Schulckenius was a Schismatike and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth and Paschalis the second are condemned by the Catholike Romane Church But truly it is strange and greatly to be lamented to see some Catholikes now adaies especially who professe sanctitie of life and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame and slander other Catholikes who dislike their opinions or proceedings with such enormious crimes as are Schisme heresie and Apostacie What reason had Card. Baronius of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same to call Sigebert a Schismatike he being by no other Authour that I haue read before Baronius charged with that heinous crime but was euer reputed a learned vertuous and religious Catholike truely I cannot in any wise perceiue Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church or a refusing to obey the Pope as he is the visible head of the Church and Christ his Vicegerent on earth 21 For obserue diligently saith Card. Caietane y 2a 2a q. 39. ar 2. in resp ad 2m that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies First in regard of the thing commanded Secondly in regard of the person commanding and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge or commander For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence to wit for that he will not fulfill that which the Pope hath commanded as to abstaine from such a warre to restore such a State c. although hee should most greiuously sinne yet he is not for this a Schismatike For it falleth out and that often that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthelesse to be his Superior For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence but also his immediate iudgement or sentence being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme nor any other crime For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things and to be warie of dangers And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically so much the easier by how much he is more potent and feareth no reuenger on earth But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sentence in regard of his office not acknowledging him to be his Superiour although he do beleiue he is then properly he is a Schismatike And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope or of the Church so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him to acknowledge him for Superiour c. Thus Card. Caietane 22. Now what Authour euer said that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape and not Gregorie to be the true and lawful Pope True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some as Trithemius z In verbo Sigebertus relateth for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church wrote letters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth whih did not become his profession but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church or that he refused to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church and in deposing Gregorie and creating Guibert Pope neither D. Schulckenius nor any other is able to prooue out of any ancient or moderne writer 23. True also it is that Sigebert was of this opinion that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Emperour and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Gregorie and answered as hee saith all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour and refused to obey Pope Gregories command wherein hee strictly ordained that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour But considering that the doctrine for the Popes power to dethrone temporall Princes and the practise thereof was then new in the Church of God and neuer
heard of before for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie not to say an heresie and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor a Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. concerning this point betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it saith Trithemius and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie saith Almainus and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine saith Pithaeus and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris to omit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen doth most clearely confirme the same it is neither reason nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme for impugning that new doctrine and practise which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God And therefore many complained saith Azâ—â— in the same place that Gregorie the seuenth did depriâ—e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire 24 For although the Bishops of Rome saith Onuphrius a man as Posseuine confesseth of exceeding great reading and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories were before honoured as the heads of Christian Religion and the Vicars of Christ and the Successours of Peter yet their authoritie was not extended any farther then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith But yet they were subiect to the Emperours all things were done at the Emperours backe they were created by them and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge or decree any thing concerning them Gregorie the seuenth the first of all the Bishops of Rome being aided with the forces of the Nortmans trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis a woman most potent in Italie and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes who were at ciuill warre among them selues contrarie to the custome of his ancestours contemning the authoritie and power of the Emperour when hee had gotten the Popedome did presume I doe not say to excommunicate but also to depriue the Emperour by whom if he was not chosen he was at the least confirmed of his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before that age For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius Anastasius Leo Iconomachus I do nothing regard Thus Onuphrius b Lib 4. de varia creat Rom Pont. 25 Lastly it is also true that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie and Pope Paschalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church or the Catholike Romane Church as D. Schulckenius affirmeth vnlesse by the Catholike Church or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls and Diuines of Rome who are appointed by the Pope for the examining permitting and forbidding of bookes which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church is altogether vntrue Neither is it knowne for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card Bellarmine haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls and especially of Card Bellarmine who hath been pleased to be a Iudge witnesse and accuser in his owne cause been prohibited and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith but the cause wherefore they are forbidden is not therein expressed neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand of what crime either in particular or in generall I am to purge my selfe although in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoe c The 24. of Iune 1614. I haue most humbly and instantly desired it and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue that they haue no small distrust in their cause and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith as Card Bellarmine and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue 26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes wherefore bookes may be forbidden and which in generall are reduced to these two heads either that they are repugnant to faith or else to good manners which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight do in so large yet doubtfull a manner extend that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie but some Correctour or other may easily except against it as those bookes are to be corrected which are against Ecclesiasticall libertie immunitie and Iurisdiction so that if a Canonist be the Corrector he will haue that blotted ouâ— which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes c. vnlesse it can be proued that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine Neither can Card Baronius nor Card Bellarmine be excused from greeuous detraction in charging Sigebert who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned vertuous and religious Catholike with that execrable crime of schisme for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account vnlesse they can proue that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church or disobey the Popes command as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church and the Successour of S. Peter 27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope and whether those who adhere to a false Pope perswading themselues for probable reasons that hee is the true and lawfull Pope are to be condemned of Schisme and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof This only at this present I will demand that if to reiect the testimonie of Sigebert or any such like Authour it be sufficient without any other proofe to say as Mr Fitzherbert answereth that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many others of the contrarie side that they liuing in the time of the Popes who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours for this hath euer been a great controuersie saith Azor betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other wrote partially in their fauour May
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
51. in Act. commendeth S. Paul that he would be iudged before him whom he was accused to haue wronged And Card. Bellarmine himselfe not agreable to this his reason did before in his Controuersies affirme y Lib. 2. de Rom. Ponâ— cap. 19. which as yet he hath not recalled that S Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar when he was accused for raising sedition and tumults in the people And in that very place of his Recognitions where he recalleth his opinion he doth very plainely insinuate as you haue seene that the cause whereof he was accused was criminall for which he was in danger saith Card. Bellarmine of a most vniust death 13 True it is that S. Paul did preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ according to the predictions of the holy Prophets and for this cause they accused him of sedition and to be a man worthy of death and therefore he appealed to the tribunall of Caesar not that Caesar should iudge whether Christ was risen from death to life for this indeed had been a spirituall cause but whether to preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ according to the predictions of the holy Prophets were sedition and a crime worthy to be punished with death by the Secular Magistrate Wherefore Festus the President of Iewrie and King Agrippa after that S. Paul had discoursed about the resurrection of Christ z Act. 26. and King Agrippa had said to S. Paul A little thou dost perswade me to become a Christian they all rose vp and going aside they spake among themselues saying that this man hath done nothing worthy of death or bonds which answere also made Lycias the Tribune to the President Foelix before in the 23. Chapter 14 A third reason which moued Card. Bellarmine to recall his former opinion and that S Paul did not appeale to Caesar as to his lawfull Iudge is for that saith he a In tract contra Barclaium cap. 3. pag. 49. it doth seeme to be altogether repugnant to the Gospell that Christ did not free expresly and by name S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes For Christ Mat. 17. did pay the didrachmes for himselfe and Peter to auoide scandall For that otherwise neither himselfe nor Peter were bound to pay that tribute he did demonstrate by those words The Kinges of the earth of whom doe they receiue tribute or cense of their children or of strangers And Peter answering of strangers Iesus said vnto him therefore the sonnes are free by which words he declared that he was free from all tribute cense for that he was the sonne of the King of all Kings and because when the sonne of a King is free also his familie is reputed free therefore Peter and the Apostles who by the gracious fauour of Christ did appertaine to his familie ought also to be free 15 But this reason is neither sufficient nor agreable to Card. Bellarmines owne principles For first Card. Baronius affirmeth b Ad ann Christi 33. nu 31. that this didrachme which was exacted from our Sauiour in this place was not a tribute due to Caesar but onely to God for the vse of the Temple according to the law of God decreed in the 30. chapter of Exodus And therefore from this place no sufficient argument can be drawne according to Card. Baronius doctrine that the Apostes were exempted from paying of tributes or any other temporall subiection due to temporall Princes Yea and which is more Card. Bellarmine himselfe in the latter Editions of his Controuersies approueth this Exposition for most true There be two interpretations saith he c Lib. 1 de Clericis cap. 28. in propos 4. of this place Therefore sonnes are free The former is of S. Hillarie who affirmeth that this place is onely meant of the tribute which God did impose vpon the Children of Israell Exodus 30. to the vse of the temple which tribute was properly called a didrachme and according to this Exposition which seemeth to vs to be most true this is the force of the argument The Kings of the earth do not exact tribute of their sonnes but of strangers therefore the King of heauen will not exact tribute of mee who am his proper and naturall sonne The second interpretation which is of S. Hierome who expoundeth those wordes of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar seemeth to bee the lesse probable because the tribute which was to be paid to Caesar was not a Didrachme but a penny as it is plaine by Math. 22. Shew me the tribute coyne and they offered him a penny Neither can it be demonstrated by any found reason that the tribute of the Didrachme was wont to be paid to Caesar but after the Ascension of Christ into heauen For Iosephus lib. 7. de bello Iudaico cap. 26. doth write that the tribute of the Didrachme which all the Iewes did pay to the temple euery yeare should afterwards be brought into the Capitole Thus Card. Bellarmine 16 Wherefore it is strange that hee should now be so forgetfull as to bring this text of holy Scripture for a reason why hee changed his former opinion and which reason also hee saith doth demonstrate that Christ our Sauiour did expresly and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Caesar whereas Card. Bellarmine himselfe as you haue seene expoundeth this place not of any tribute to bee paid to Caesar but onely due to God for the vse of the temple And therefore small reason had Card. Bellarmine for the aforesaid reasons which are so weake and repugnant to his owne doctrine as you haue seene to recall his former opinion which for so long time hee had in publike Schooles and writings with the common opinion of Diuines taught and maintained against the Canonists but truely he had no reason to condemne for such weak reasons the contrary opinion of the Schoole Diuines of whose profession he himselfe also is as improbable 17 Far more agreeable to reason and also to Card. Bellarmines profession hee being a Schoole Diuine were it for him in my iudgement to returne to his ancient opinion which the Schoole Diuines doe generally maintaine and rather to recall some other his opinions wherein hee plainely contradicteth his owne doctrine as I haue shewed before As that our Sauiour by those wordes therefore sonnes are free c. Math. 17. did expresly and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes which is flatly repugnant to that which hee taught in another place that these wordes are not meant of any tribute which was to be paid to Caesar but onely of the tribute which God did impose Exod. 30. vpon the children of Israell to the vse of the Temple And besides that the cause whereof the Iewes did accuse S. Paul and for
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
vertue of Religion in vsing their power vnlawfully but they should not sinne for doing that which they haue no power to doe as hee who is no Priest or Bishop should in consecrating or giuing orders offend for that the power of a Priest to consecrate and of a Bishop to giue orders cannot either wholly or in part bee taken away from them by the Pope So likewise although a spirituall Pastor should for iust cause forbid a temporall Prince who is his spirituall child and subiect to excercise his Regall power and authority ouer Clergy men if that temporall Prince should heerein transgresse the command of his spirituall Pastor supposing it to bee lawfull hee should indeed offend against religion in vsing his Regall power and authority contrary to the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastor which command was imposed for the motiue of Religion neuerthelesse hee should not offend against iustice in doing that which hee hath no power and authority to doe in that manner as another man who is not their Prince should by depriuing them of their goods or punishing their persons if they transgresse the lawes offend For that it is not in the power of a spirituall Pastor to depriue a temporall Prince either wholly or in part of his Regall power and temporall Soueraignty 40 Wherefore if wee respect the power it selfe and the vertue of legall or morall iustice a temporall Prince hath full ample and supreme royall power and authority ouer Clergy men notwithstanding that his spirituall Pastor should for iust cause command him not to exercise his Regall power vpon the persons of Clergie men who doe offend his lawes but if wee respect rhe vse and execution of the power and the vertue of religion the vse indeed of his power in the aforesaid case is so limited by the lawfull command of the spirituall Pastor that the Prince vsing his power ouer Clergy men sinneth against Religion for that hee disobeyeth the lawfull command of his spirituall Superiour which was imposed for the motiue of religion but not against iustice for that hee doth not excercise his Regall power but vpon those who are his Subiects and doe owe vnto him true loyalty and temporall obedience 41 And truely if the aforesaid obiection were of force that the temporall Prince hath no power or authority ouer Clergie men who are subiect to him in temporalls against the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour because he hath no power to sinne it would likewise follow that a suspended Bishop or Priest haue no power to giue orders or to consecrate because they haue no power to sinne and a penitent hath no lawfull right or power to sell or giue away his goods against the lawfull command of his Ghostly Father because he hath no power to sinne and a man hath no power or right to giue money to a dishonest end or to giue away his goods prodigally and consequently they should be restored back againe because he hath no power to sinne I will say nothing at this time how farre Cleargie men either by the priuiledges of Christan Princes or by the Ecclesiasticall Canons are de facto exempted both in their goods and in their persons from ciuill powers but onely I thought good at this time to set downe the true state of the question among Catholikes concerning the authority of spirituall Pastours to exempt Cleargie men from the temporall power of Christian Princes that thereby they may clearely perceiue what kinde of argument may be drawne from the exemption of Cleargie men to proue the Popes power to depose Princes and by way of sentence to depriue them wholy of their Regall authoritie 42 Thus you haue seene in what manner temporall thinges are subiect to spirituall temporall endes to spirituall endes temporall power to the spirituall power the temporall sword to the spirituall sword the flesh to the spirit the Moone to the Sunne and temporall Princes to spirituall Pastors and that from the subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall no good argument can be brought to proue that the Pope by vertue of his spirituall power can dispose of temporalls depose temporall Princes or punish temporally by way of coercion but onely that in order to spirituall good he can command temporalls and punish temporally by way of command but by way of coercion onely with spirituall and not with temporall punishments And by this which hath bene saide the Reader may easily vnderstand the true sense and meaning of a certaine proposition which Card. Bellarmine in his Schulckenius doth often inculcate as though there were some great mystery lye hidden therein to proue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes to wit that a Christian Prince is a child of the Church and subiect to the Pope not onely as he is a Christian man but also as he is a Christian Prince and the same he affirmeth of a Christian â—awyer of a Christian Souldier of a Christian Physitian and so of the rest 43 For all these three propositions A Christian Prince as he is a Christian Prince is a child of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours A Christian Prince as he is a Christian is a Child of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours and a Prince as he is a Christian is a Childe of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours haue one and the selfe same sense and so likewise of a Christian Lawier of a Christian Soldier of a Christian Physitian c. For the true meaning of them all is that Christianitie and not Regall authority or the knowledge of lawe warfare or Physicke is the cause why a Prince a Lawier a Soldier a Physitian and all other men of what trade soeuer they be are Children of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours and that therefore they are to be directed and instructed by spirituall Pastours not precisely in the rules of ciuill gouernment in the rules of lawe warfare or Physicke but onely in the rules and principles of Christian doctrine and how they ought to gouerne ciuilly and vse their knowledge and trades according to the rules and precepts of Christian Religion which if they refuse to doe they may be corrected and punished by spirituall Pastours with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall punishments 44 But from hence it doth not follow that either temporall power the knowledge of the lawe warfare or physicke are among Christians per se subiect to the spirituall power but onely per accidens as I haue often declared and in those thinges which doe concerne or belong to Christian Religion or that spirituall Pastours can by vertue of their spirituall power correct or punish Christian Princes Lawiers Soldiers Physitians c. by depriuing them by way of sentence of their Regall authoritie of their skill and knowledge in the lawes in warfare or Physicke which they did not receiue from the spirituall power but onely by depriuing them of the Sacraments and such like spirituall benifites of which they
by Gregorius de Valentia a Secunda secundae Disp 1. q 12 â—unc 2. assertio secuÌ„da Schioppius b In his Ecclesiasticus cap. 42. pag 140. and now lately by Suarez c In dâ—fâ—es fidei lib. 6. cap. 4. nu 18. 20. for which cause principally his book was by a sollemne decree of the Parliament publikely condemned and burnt at Paris by the hangman as containing damnable pernicious scandalous and seditious propositions tending to the subuersion of States and to induce the subiects of Kings and Soueraigne Princes and others to attempt against their sacred persons neither is that Decree which was publâ—shed and printed by the Kings authority as yet recalled or Suarez booke permitted by authority to be sold at Paris howsoeuer some fauourers of the Iesuits doe not sticke to affirme heere among the common people Yea and M. Fitzherbert himselfe although hee will not forsooth meddle with the liues of Princes yet boldly affirmeth d Cap. â— nu 15. 16. 17. that the Pope hath power to take away my life and hath power ouer the goods and liues of all Christians which wordes beeing generall and including all Christians and consequently Christian Princes according to his doctrine as you shall see beneath e Part. 3. cap. 9. 10. doe cleerely shew what his opin on and iudgement is in this poynt touching the killing also or murdering of Christian Princes 61. Now to his argument First therefore his Maior proposition I doe willingly grant to wit that if there be any doubt or question concerning the sense of any law or any part thereof and consequently for the cleering of any difficulty or doubt in this oath three things are specially to be pondered for the exposition of it the words of the law the mind or intention of the law-maker and the reason or end of the law and that the words of the law and consequently of this oath are to be vnderstood in their proper and vsuall signification as also by a peculiar clause it is expressly ordained therein And of this his Maior proposition no man maketh doubt 62. But his Minor proposition I vtterly deny and to his first proofe thereof I answere as easily but more fully with the like words which hee himselfe vseth For I affirme that the contrary is euident and that the words of this clause now in question do make clearely for vs wherein I dare boldly appeale to the iudgement of any learned and discreet Reader for that no man of any learning or iudgement who knoweth the difference betwixt an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implieth a free choice to take either part of the disiunction I doe not say at the first sight but after mature diliberation and a diligent examination of all the words of this clause and of the natures of an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition will or can reasonably conceiue that in a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a freedome to choose which part of the disiunction one will as is the proposition which is now in question both parts of the disiunction must be abiured alike for that to make the whole conditionall disiunctiue proposition to be hereticall or to be abiured as hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as I may truly and lawfully abiure this proposition as hereticall God may be honoured or blasphemed by his creatures or which is all one it is in the free choice of creatures to honour or to blaspheme God wherein one onely part of the disiunction is hereticall and the other of faith and so both parts of the disiunction are not abiured as hereticall although the whole and entire proposition be hereticall and may therefore be truely abiured as hereticall 63. What any learned man but especially the vulgar sort of Catholikes considering the different grounds of Catholikes and Protestants in points of Religion and that the oath was made by a Protestant Parliament and that the title of the Act wherein the taking thereof is commanded is for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants and such like reasons may at the first sight conceiue of the lawfulnesse thereof as also what they may at the first sight conceiue of the sense of this clause which is now in question considering that the coniunction disiunctiue or doth more vsually make an absolute disiunctiue then a conditionall disiunctiue proposition for that where once it followeth the verbe may and consequently maketh a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which is equiualent to a copulatiue aboue a hundred times at least it doth not follow the verbe may but maketh an absolute disiunctiue proposition and withall not examining the difference betwixt an absolute and a conditionall disiunctiue proposition may I say at the first sight conceiue of the esens and meaning of this clause of the Oath is no sufficient Argument to proue that this clause or any other of the Oath is according to the true proper and vsuall vnderstanding of the wordes in very deed vnlawfull For many things may seeme to bee so at the first sight which after a second reuiew and a more diligent examination of the matter do seeme to be far otherwise 64 My Aduersary following therein Card Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Suarez did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to excommunicate the King was denyed in this Oath but at the second sight and vpon better consideration hee hath as it seemes perceiued his error and ouer sight for that being charged therewith by me hee hath passed it ouer altogether with silence Many also of our English Catholikes did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to absolue from sinnes to grant Pardons and indulgences and to dispense in oathes was denyed in this oath taking some colour or pretence from those words absolue pardons and dispensations but after the second sight they saw that there was no such thing as at the first sight they conceiued Many such like exceptions I could alleadge which at the first sight some conceiued against the Oath which vpon the second review and after a more diligent consideration appeared to haue no firme ground to rely vpon 65 But if any learned or discreet Catholick man will make a second review and a more diligent examination of the Oath and of all the clauses and wordes contained therein and wil also duly consider which I obserued in my Theologicall disputation f Cap. 4. sec 3 the difference betwixt the opinion and the intention of his Maiesty and that although his Maiesty and the Parliament be of opinion that the Pope hath no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yeâ— they did not intend to binde Catholiks to acknowledge so much in this Oath and that although the title of that Act wherein many lawes were enacted against Catholiques touching points of Religion for the which it might well be called an Act for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants euen for
disiunctiue proposition as I haue often repeated before Secondly hee would seeme to proue the same by this argument His Maiestie is perswaded â—hat the doctrine not only which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also which speculatiuely maintaineth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes is hereticall and repugnant to the holy Scriptures as may euidently appeare by the manifold places and texts of Scripture which he alledgeth c. yea and hee talledgeth much more Scripture to condemne the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then Widdrington doth for violent attempts against their persons therefore it is manifest that according to his Maiesties intention both parts of that clause should be abiured as hereticall 97 But first this consequence of my Aduersary His Maiestie is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to murther Princes but also to depose them is hereticall therefore his Maiesties meaning or intention was that in the aforesaid clause of the oath both parts should be abiured as hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense whereof I will speake beneath p Nu. 106. et seq M. Fitzherbert might haue seene if it had pleased him in my Theologicall disputation q Cap. 4. sec 3. to be very insufficient where I did clearly shewe that there is a great difference to be made betwixt his Maiesties perswasion or opinion and his meaning or intention For his Maiesty doth according to the grounds of the Protestant Religion defend diuers opinions which neuerthelesse he doth not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects by this oath to defend and professe 98 As for example His Maiesty is perswaded that he is the supreame Lord and Gouernour in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall and yet he doth not intend that his Catholike Subiects shall by those words of this oath our Soueraigne Lord King Iames professe and maintaine the same Neither doth he ground the lawfulnes of this oath and the abiuration of the doctrine condemned therein vpon his Ecclesiasticall Primacie as my Aduersary here seemeth to insinuate for that the Oath of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth r In his Apologie pag. 46. was deuised for putting a difference betwene Papists and Protestants but this oath was ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-treason 99 Also his Maiesty is perswaded that the Pope hath not power to excommunicate his Maiesty and yet he doth intend by those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. to binde English Catholikes to professe the same Å¿ See my Th. Disp cap. 4. sec 1. howsoeuer Card. Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez without sufficient proofe and M. Fitzherbert without any proofe at all doe affirme that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in this oath For although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty also affirmeth t In his Premonition pag 9. at the first framing of this oath made it to containe that the Pope had no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yet his Maiestie did purposely decline that poiâ—t u In the Catalogue of the lyes of Tortus nu 1. and forced them to reforme it onely making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Popes can warrant his Subiects to practise against his person or state as indeed taking any such temporall violence to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 100 Likewise his Maiesty is perswaded that all reconcilings of his Subiects to the Pope and all returnings of English Priests made by the Popes authority into this Realme c are truely and properly treasons although not naturally and forbidden by the lawe of nature vnlesse they be repugnant to true naturall and ciuill alleagiance yet positiue and forbidden by the lawes of the Realme neuerthelesse by those words of the oath to disclose all treasons c. he did not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects to reueale and disclose such kinde of treasons vnlesse they be truely and properly vnnaturall treasons and repugnant to naturall alleagiance For that his Maiesty was carefull as he himselfe also writeth x In his Premonition pag. 9. naturall that nothing should be contained in this oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obediednce with a promise to resist all contrarie vnnaturall and vnciuill violence 101 Wherefore seeing that his Maiestie doth binde the swearer to take this oath according to the plaine and common sense and vnderstanding of the words although his Maiesty be perswaded that it is hereticall to hould that the Pope hath power to depose princes yet from thence it cannot rightly be concluded that therfore by this oath he intended to bind his Catholike Subiects to acknowledge and professe the same vnlesse the words of the oath according to their proper and vsuall signification doe imply the same Considering therefore that as I haue clearly conuinced to make that proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other to be hereticall it is sufficient according to the common sense of the words and the approued doctrine of Logicians that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as without doubt the latter part of this disiunction is it is euident that his Maiesties mtaning was no other then to binde the swearer to that sense to which the words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification doe binde And thus much concerning the consequence 102 Now touching the antecedent proposition although it be true that his Maiesty is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also the speculatiue doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes is a false doctrine and repugnant to holy Scriptures and consequently hereticall taking hereticall for that which implyeth an vntruth contrary to the word of God reuealed in holy Scriptures in which sense also all those Catholikes who doe hould this doctrine of the Popes power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes to be false doe hould also that it is contrary to the word of God and consequently also hereticall yet if hereticall be taken for that which importeth a knowne and manifest vntruth repugnant to holy Scriptures and so acknowledged also to be by the common consent also of Catholikes my Aduersarie will hardly proue that his Maiesty is perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which holdeth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes or to depose them by a iuridicall sentence is hereticall in this sense or repugnant to holy Scriptures in the opinion of all or of the most part of Catholikes albeit he be perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which approueth the Popes power to murther or to take away the liues