of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
Pope is said to be in possession of his right to depose Princes so Princes may be said to bee in possession of their right not to be deposed by the Pope and therefore in this cause is like or equall doubtfull or disputable as well for Princes right not to be deposed as for the Popes right to depose them and on the other side Princes are not onely in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope but also in quiet peaceable and lawfull possession of their Kingdomes and temporall Dominions which onely are properly said to be possessed in respect whereof this rule fauoureth onely Princes and not the Pope and therefore in this doubtfull and disputable case of the Popes power to depose Princes the state and condition of Princes who are in lawfull possession not onely of their right not to be deposed by the Pope but also of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they possesse is according to the aforesaid rule to be preferred 70. Moreouer that the Popes right power or authoritie to depose Princes may be said to be possessed if possession properly be of rights it is necessarie that hee exercise that power to depose Kings they knowing thereof and bearing it patiently and without contradiction as may clearely be gathered out of u Tract 2. de Instit disp 14. Molina and x Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub 11. Lessius And the reason is euident for otherwise if any man should challenge a right bee it good or bad and should exercise that pretended right the contrarie part contradicting he may neuerthelesse be said to be in lawfull possession of that right And so if temporall Lords should pretend to haue a spirituall Iurisdiction ouer temporall and spirituall persons and should exercise that pretended spirituall Iurisdiction ouer them they contradicting and excepting against the same they might neuerthelesse be said to be in possession of that spirituall Iurisdiction But Christian Kings from the time of Henry the fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that euer was deposed by the Pope vntill the time of Henry the fourth most Christian King of France who was the last King whom the Pope deposed haue euer resisted and contradicted this authoritie of the Pope to depose them And therefore although Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth challenged this authoritie to depose Kings yet they cannot be said to haue been for one yeare or one day in possession of that authoritie ouer Kings seeing that Kings haue euer gainsaid and contradicted it And although there should perchance haue beene some one or other Christian King who for some priuate or publicke respect hath not resisted the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced against him but rather yeelded thereunto yet this cannot be a sufficient warrant to preiudice his Successours or that the Pope may bee said to be in possession of his pretended authoritie to depose Kings in generall but at the most to depose that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the authoritie which the Pope claimed to depose him 71. Fourthly and lastly D. Schulckenius answereth that the aforesaid rule is to be vnderstood when the controuersie is betwixt two inferiour parties who are in suite and not betwixt the Iudge and the partie accused or if wee will apply it to the Iudge and the partie accused the Iudge is to be preferred before the partie accused but the Pope is Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes and therefore this rule saith he is in fauour of the Pope But how vnsound and insufficient is also this Reply of D. Schulckenius it is very apparant For First although the Pope be Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes in spirituall causes and punishments yet in temporall causes and punishments they haue no Iudge or Superiour besides God the supreme Iudge of all both Kings and Popes and therefore well said our learned Countreiman Alexander of Hales y 3 part q. 40. mem 5. q. 4. expound those words A King is to be punished by God alone with materiall punishment And againe A King hath no man who may iudge his facts to wit to inflict corporall punishment And againe A king doth excell as it is written 1. Pet. 2. it is true in his degree to wit to exercise corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but God alone 72. Yea rather contrariwise the Roman Emperors were in times past Iudges in temporall causes of all the Romane Empire and of euery member thereof both Cleargie and Laitie but the deposition of Kings is a temporall cause and punishment for what crime soeuer whether temporall or spirituall a King be deposed and therefore the controuersie about deposing Kings betwixt the Pope challenging to himselfe that authoritie and Kings who are supreme Iudges in temporalls denying it is not betwixt the Iudge and the party accused but at the least betwixt two equalls in temporall causes whereof the Pope who first challenged this power to make Kings no Kings is the plaintiffe and Kings who defend their ancient right and prerogatiue not to be deposed by the Pope are the defendant and so also that second rule of the Law Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. When 〈◊〉 is not cleare whether of the parties who are in suite haue right the defendant is to be preferred before the plaintiffe fauoureth Kings and not the Pope who only from the time of Gregorie the seuenth claimed this authoritie to make Kings no Kings 73. Secondly I doe not thinke that any Lawyer will affirme that if a Iudge who is onely knowne to haue authoritie in ciuill matters as ciuill is opposed to criminall should challenge a Iurisdiction in criminall causes and condemne a man to death before he shewed that hee had sufficient warrant from the Prince so to doe the partie condemned is bound to obey that Iudge or that the aforesaid rule In a like or doubtfull cause hee that hath possession it to be preferred should fauour the aforesaid Iudge and not the party condemned who is not onely in possession of his life but also hath right to defend his life vntill the Iudge shew sufficient warrant or it is otherwise publikely knowne that he hath authoritie to take it away Neither is it a sufficient warrant for the Iudge that it is knowne that he is a Iudge in ciuill matters vnlesse it be also knowne that he is a Iudge also in criminall causes as likewise it is not a sufficient warrant for the Pope to depriue Kings of their temporall kingdomes that it is cleare that he is a Iudge in all spirituall matters vnlesse also it be cleare as yet it is not that he is also a Iudge in temporall causes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coercion as without doubt are the taking away of temporall kingdomes for what crime soeuer they be taken away 74.
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
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
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
aforesaid but also in practise are bound to adhere to his Maiestie and to resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that supposing it to be speculatiuely vncertaine whether the Pope hath any such power to depose a King or no it is an vndoubted rule k De regulis Iuris in 6◠among the Lawyers and grounded vpon the light of nature and principles of Diuinitie that in causa dubia siue incerta melior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the state of him that hath possession is the better And againe Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est Reo potiùs quà m Actori when it is vnknowne whether of the parties who are in suite hath right the defendant is to be preferred or fauoured before the plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this controuersie concerning the authoritie of Popes and Soueraigntie of Kings that is from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kings call it temporall or spirituall as you please for sure it is that the effect is temporall hath been vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kings and Subiects and therefore it can not bee said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authoritie although wee should grant that power right or authoritie may be said to bee possessed it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow in speculation concerning the Popes power to depose Princes yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Kings and the right of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not hee can not with a good conscience endeauour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which hee lawfully possesseth 66 Wherevpon in the end of my Apologie I inferred this conclusion whereof also in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I made mention And therefore if either Pope Prince or any other of a forraine countrey should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the kingdome which he possesseth this controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided hee should contrarie to the rules of iustice doe that Prince most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect can not be excused from manifest treason what soeuer opinion in speculation he doth maintaine concerning the Popes temporal power who should in practise vnder pretence perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duely also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne endeauour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced against him by the Pope 67 But because D. Schulkenius hath endeauoured to confute that reason which I out of the aforesaid rule of the Law In causa dubia melior est conditio possidentis I brought to proue that no man in practise can with a safe conscience obey the Popes sentence of depriuation so long as this controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth vndecided I will briefely declare how insufficiently he obiecteth against that reason First therefore he affirmeth l Cap. 15. ad nu 468. pag. 629. pag. 633. ad nu 470. that this doctrine to depose Princes is not doubtfull or in controuersie among Catholikes but it is certaine and of faith and none but heretikes and schismatikes doe defend the contrarie and therefore that rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the possessour is the bettter can not bee applyed to the Popes power to depose Princes But how vntrue this is and also how slanderous and iniurious it is to many learned Catholikes especially to the most Christian Kingdom of France I will cleerely shew beneath in so much that for this cause onely if there had been no other his book was deseruedly burnt publikly at Paris 68 Secondly D. Schulkenius would seeme to affirme that the aforesaid rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the state of him who hath possessions is the better is not a rule of the Law for that saith he I finde not in the rules of the Law In a doubtfull or disputable cause but In a like or equall case the state or condition of him who hath possession is the better But it D. Schulkenius will cauill about the words and not regard the sense I may likewise say that hee findeth not in the rules of the Law In an equall or like case but in an equall and like cause the state of him who hath possession is the better But because cause and case like equall doubtfull vncertaine and disputable haue all one sense for that if two causes or cases be doubtfull vncertaine or disputable they are like or equall in that therefore I regarding the sense and not the words did rather vse the words doubtfull vncertaine and disputable then like or equall both for that the former words doe declare the sense of the rule more plainely and also because Diuines in alledging that rule of the Law do commonly vse the word doubtfull as it may be seene in Dominicus Sotus m Lib. 7. de instit q. 3. ar 2. Ioannes Azor n Tom. 1. lib 2. Instit cap. 18. Ioannes Salas o Dis 1. sec 9. de Legibus and Gabriel Vasquez p Prima secundae disp 65. cap. and therefore Vasquez citing the aforesaid rule taketh like and doubtfull for all one The aforesaid rule saith hee q Disp 66. ca. 7 In dubijs seu in pari causa c. In doubts or in a like cause the state of the possessor is the better c. 69 Wherefore D. Sculckenius perceiuing that this exception of his against the aforesaid rule is only verball will not absolutely deny the rule but answereth thirdly that if there be such a rule of the Law as without doubt in sense there is both in the Canon r De Regulis Iuris in sexto and Ciuill Law and in expresse words the Diuines and Lawiers doe cite it so it doth make for the Pope s ff De regulis Iuris regula 170. In pari causa c. who hath beene for many hundred yeares in possession to iudge and depose Seclar Princes especially in a cause belonging to faith But this answere of D. Sculckenius is very insufficient For first although we should grant that right power or authoritie may bee said to be possessed in that sense as Possession is taken in Law whereas according to the Lawiers as Molina the Iesuite obserueth t De Iustitia tract 2. Disp 12. possession properly is onely of corporall things and right power and such like spirituall things are onely said to bee as it were possessed yet supposing that it is a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable question whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no as the
And therefore I will easily grant that the Pope may exact if need require not only of the Romane Emperour but also of all other Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance this is that I vtterly deny neither will Card. Bellarmine or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus a man excellently learned and a Classicall Doctour that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes and to dispose of their temporall dominions Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctour of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient 1. THe third authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 7. and also in my Apologie b Num. 121. was of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike and as Trithemius relateth c In verbo Ioannes Parisiensis most learned in the holy Scriptures and who in the Vniuersitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Professour and left behind him many Disciples He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran which is now adaies so greatly vrged by our Aduersaries This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion that if a King should become an heretike and incorrigible and a contemner of Ecclesiasticall Censures the Pope may do somewhat with the people whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dignitie and be deposed by the people to wit he may excommunicate all those to whom it belongeth to depose the king who should obey him as their Soueraigne Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion that it belongeth not to the Pope to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall or which is all one to depriue them d Almainus de potest Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8. of their kingdomes by a definitiue sentence in such sort that after the sentence be published they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie For he affirmeth e De potest Regia Papali cap. 14. ad 20. that excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge For although saith he it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not power to doe this but by vsing those meanes which be giuen him by God which is by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle yet concerning the principall controuersie which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether it be hereticall erroneous or temerarious to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely as I haue now shewed contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Disputation 2 Marke now good Reader with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis saith he f Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num 4. is not for the contrarie opinion For although he giueth lesse to the Pope then he ought yet he giueth as much as sufficeth for our purpose For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope doe depose immediately by his sentence or that he may by his right withdraw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is and euer hath been whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence in such sort that after his sentence of depriuation be denounced they who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie are then no more Kings and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis blusheth not to affirme that it doth not appertaine to the present question whether the Pope may depose immediately by his sentence which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle For most certaine it is euen according to Card Bellarmines owne doctrine g in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. that the Pope can not withdraw discharge or absolue subiects from their obedience immediatly by his sentence vnles he haue authoritie to depriue immediately by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie for that authoritie in a Prince and obedience in subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect as the dignitie power or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour saith Suarez h in Defensione fides c. lib. 6. cap 3. nu 6. and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince and is not depriued of his Princely power is clearely repugnant saith Card Bellarmine i in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. p. 202. to the law of God and nature 3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods or dominions either of Kings or priuate men And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee affirmeth k De potest Regia Pap. cap 6. 7. that the Pope is not a Lord to whom the propertie of Church liuings doth belong but onely a dispencer of them but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer but a declarer of the law And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners all the goods of the faithfull yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated the Pope who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie but of all the faithfull as they are faithfull hath authoritie as he is generall informer of faith and manners in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull to ordaine them to be exposed as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās or other such like accident And this ordination of the Pope is only a
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
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
Rom. 12. wee being many are one body in Christ is examined 1. ANd to begin first with the vnion Card. Bellarmine bringeth two arguments to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power doe make one bodie or common-wealth among Christians The first is taken from the authoritie of S. Paul Rom 12. and 1 Cor 12. where hee affirmeth that wee being many are one body in Christ from whence Card Bellarmine concludeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont cap. 7. that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit the Church 2 To this argument I answered in my b Num 83. 89. 165. Apologie that the meaning of S. Paul in those places is that all Christians both Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they are by Baptisme regenerate in Christ doe truly properly and formally make one bodie one house one cittie one communitie or common-wealth to wit the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ which Card. Bellarmine defineth c Lib. 3. de Ecclesia cap 2. to be a companie of men vnited together by the profession of the same Christian faith and Communion of the same Sacraments vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastours and especially of one Romane Bishop Christ his Vicar in earth But S. Paul doth not say that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one onely bodie communitie or common-wealth and not also two or that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes not considered as Christians or regenerate in Christ by baptisme but as by their naturall birth or ciuil conuersation they are subiect to temporal Princes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe not also truely properly and formally make also another politike bodie another citie another communitie or common-wealth to wit the earthly Kingdomes of the Christian world 3. Wherefore it is not true that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes considered diuerse waies do not make diuerse kingdoms or common-wealths but one onely as Card. Bellarmine concludeth out of S. Paul for as by Baptisme they are regenerate in Christ and subiect in spirituals to Christ his vicegerent in earth they make one body or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ and this onely doth signifie S. Paul by those words we being many are one body in Christ but S. Paul doth not denie that all Christians as by their naturall birth or ciuill conuersation they are subiect to Secular Princes in temporall causes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe also truely properly and formally make another body or common-wealth which are the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world Cleargie men saith Card. Bellarmine himselfe d Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill common-wealth and againe e Ibid. cap. 30. if one saith he consider the companie of Lay-men not as they are Christians but as they are Citizens or after any other manner that companie cannot bee called the Church and consequently they must bee another common-wealth and therefore the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power or Clerkes or Laikes in whom the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe reside being considered diuerse waies doe not truely properly and formally make one only body but two distinct seuerall bodies or common-wealths although materially and accidentally vnited in that maner as I declared before f Cap. 1. nu 3. and presently will declare more at large 4. And whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that although the temporall and spirituall power doe make two partiall common-wealths yet they doe also make one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and to affirme the contrary is saith he against the Catholike faith hee doth heerein both speake contrarie to his owne principles and to that which hee knoweth to bee the Catholike faith and hee must also of necessitie fall into the Canonists opinion which he before g Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. a cap. 2. pretended to confute concerning the Popes spirituall and temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world For if the Church of Christ be one totall body or common-wealth compounded of Ecclesiastical and ciuill power as a man is compounded of soule and body for this is that similitude which so much pleaseth Card. Bellarmine and is therefore so often inculcated by him it must necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope in whom according to his other grounds all the power of the Church doth reside must haue truly properly and formally both temporall and Ecclesiasticall power as a man who is compounded of soule and bodie hath truely properly and formally in him both the soule and bodie and all the powers and faculties of them both And what else is this I pray you then to maintaine with the Canonists that the Pope as Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch and that hee hath truely properly and formally both ciuill and spirituall authority And yet Card. Bellarmine in other places doth expressely affirme that the Pope as Pope hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 5 The Diuines saith he h In his book against D. Barclay ca. 12. pag. 137. doe giue to the Pope temporall and spirituall power onely in the Dominions of the Church which power in the patrimonie of S. Peter Pope Innocent in cap. per venerabilem doth call a full power ouer other Christian Prouinces they doe giue to the Pope onely a spirituall power which of it selfe and properly doth regard spirituall things but temporall things it doth regard as they are subordained to spirituall And therefore when we speake properly we say that the Pope hath power in temporals but not that he hath temporall power as he is Pope Now how these two can stand together that the spirituall and temporall power among Christians doe make one entire and totall body whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head as the body and soule doe make one man and yet that the Pope as Pope shall haue no temporall power which in it selfe is temporall but onely spirituall athough in some cases extended to temporall things seeing that these two powers doe truely compose the Church of Christ and consequently both of them are truly and really in the Church which they compound and so likewise in the Pope in whom all the power of the Church doth reside I remit to the iudgement of any sensible man 5. Besides what a more flat contradiction can there be then this to say that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe compound indeede two partiall but one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ or Christian common-wealth as hee heere affirmeth i In his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. and withall that the Church of Christ or the Christian common-wealth is compounded onely of spirituall authoritie as a little beneath hee affirmeth in these words d In his Schulckenius cap
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
and spirituall power that is of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes is made properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth 12. And dare D. Schulckenius trow you presume to say that S. Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius * Ad Rom. 13. and those others whom partly I did cite before e Cap. 6. and partly I will beneath f Cap. 12. were not well in their wits when they affirmed That whether he be a Monke or a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes Or dare he presume to say that Dominicus Sotus Franciscus Victoria Medina Sayrus Valentia and innumerable other Diuines cited by Sayrus g Lib. 3. Thesaurie 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16 and also by Salas h Disp 14. de Legibus sect 8. the Iesuite whose opinion hee approoueth and withall affirmeth That some few moderne Diuines doe hold the contrary were not well in their wits when they taught that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to their state nor to Ecclesiasticall Lawes or Canons and that Kings are Lords of Cleargie men and that Cleargie men are bound to come at their call and as Subiects to sweare allegeance and obedience to them as Salas in expresse words affirmeth and that Cleargie men are not exempted from secular power concerning the directiue or commanding force thereof in ciuill Lawes which are profitable to the good state of the common wealth which are the expresse words of Gregorius de Valentia tom 3. disp 9. q. 5. punc 3. 13 And to conclude dare D. Schulckenius presume to say that Cardinall Bellarmine was not well in his wits when hee wrote i Lib. 1. de Clericis câ—p 28. propos 2a. That Cleargie men are not in any manner exempted from the obligation of ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to holy Canons or to the office of their Clergie although in the last Editions of his Booke he hath left out those words in any manner not alleaging any cause wherefore And therefore although Cleargie men are by the Ecclesiastical Lawes and priuiledges of temporall Princes exempted fâ—om the tribunalls of secular Magistrates and from paying of certaine tributes and personall seruices yet to say that they are exempted wholly from temporall subiection and that they are not subiect to the directiue power of the ciuil Lawes nor can truely and properly commit treasons against any temporall Prince for that they owe not true fidelitie allegiance and ciuill subiection to any temporall Prince as some few Iesuites of these latter times haue not feared to a uerre whose opinion Card. Bellarmine now contrarie to his ancient doctrine which for many yeeres together he publikely maintained doth now seeme to follow is repugnant in my iudgement both to holy Scriptures so expounded by the ancient Fathers to the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and once also of Card. Bellarmine himselfe at which time I thinke D. Schulckenius will not say that he was not wel in his wits and also to the practise both of the primitiue Church and of all Christian Kingdomes euen to these dayes and it is a doctrine newly broached in the Christian world without sufficient proofe scandalous to Catholike Religion iniurious to Chrian Princes and odious to the pious eares of all faithfull and well affected Subiects 14. The other reason which D. Schulckenius allegeth why Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laicks doe not make properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth for to say that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doe make formally either one temporal or one spiritual coÌ„mon-wealth is very vntrue and repugnant to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before vnlesse we will speake very improperly to wit for that Cleargie men are superiour and not subiect is as insufficient as the former for that temporall Princes are in temporalls superiour and haue preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy men And therefore the temporall and spirituall power or Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth doe neither make one politike or temporall body nor one spirituall or Ecclesiasticall body nor one total common-wealth consisting of both powers whereof the Pope is head but they doe make formally and properly two totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the spirituall kingdome of Christ which consisteth onely of spirituall power and the earthly kingdomes of this Christian world which consisteth onely of temporall and ciuill authority both which bodies are commonly signified by the name of the Christian world or Christian common-wealth wherin all things are well ordered and rightly disposed and therefore superiours are aboue inferiours and inferiours are subiect to superiours but in temporall causes temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the head hath the preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy-men and in spirituall causes the spirituall power whereof the Pope is head is superiour and to confound these two powers were to breake all good order as before I also declared And therfore for good reason I granted the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument and denied his consequence 15. But fourthly obserue good Reader another palpable vntruth which D. Schulckenius in this place affirmeth Card. Bellarmine as you haue seene endeuoured by his third argument to proue that the temporall power as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and his argument was this If the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of the temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall .. The antecedent proposition I did grant and I denied his consequence Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth that for this cause I denyed his consequence for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made formally one politike body which is very vntrue For although I should acknowledge as in very deede I doe that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to Christ the invisible and celestiall head doe make properly and formally one totall body or common-wealth consisting of both powers which may be called the Christian common wealth but more properly the Christian world yet I would and doe denie his consequence and the reason hereof I alledged before for that they are not essentiall parts of this totall bodie as the bodie soule are of man but integrall parts as two shoulders two sides hands feete eyes eares c. are integrall parts of mans bodie and doe not make an essentiall but an integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessarie as I shewed before k Cap. 6. nu 6. 10. that one part bee subiect to an other but it sufficeth that both be subiect to the head And although I should also grant as I doe that temporall and spirituall power doe
that both trades were subiect to one man So likwise if a man were constrained to loose either his eye or his finger the order of charitie would require that hee should preferre the eye before the finger for that the eye is a more noble a more necessarie a more profitable part of the body then the finger and yet from hence we cannot well conclude that therefore the finger is subiect or subordained to the eye but that both are parts and members of the body of the same man who therefore by order of charitie ought with due order and respect to haue a care of the whole body and euery part thereof and to preferre the more worthy necessary or profitable before the lesse worthy necessarie or profitable member And this I said was the plaine case of the temporall power among Christians compared to the spirituall for that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power temporall power and spirituall subiection c. are among Christians so vnited in one subiect that the same Christian man is a part member and Citizen both of the temporall and also of the spirituall common wealth and both common wealths may be subiect to the same Prince as appeareth in the Pope and therefore the order of charitie doth require that euery Christian man ought to preferre the spirituall good and spirituall common wealth before the temporall good and the temporall common-wealth not for that the temporall power or common wealth is subiect to the spirituall but for that all Christian Princes and people are parts members and Citizens of both common wealths and the spirituall is farre more noble and worthy and therefore if other things be alike to bee preferred before the temporall by them who are parts and members of them both 21. Now D. Schulckenius would cunningly forsooth make the Reader beleeue that I say the very same that Card. Bellarmine doth and that I doe not by my answere ouerthrow but confirme Card. Bellarmines Reply for that I am enforced saith he to confesse that the chiefe cause why a temporall Prince ought to suffer damage in temporalls least the spirituall good should be hindered is not the order of charitie but the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall when they make one spirituall common wealth or mysticall body of Christ which neuerthelesse as you haue seene is apparantly vntrue For although I doe indeed alledge subiection for a cause why the order of charitie doth require that a temporall Christian Prince ought to preferre the spirituall good before the temporall by which word subiection D. Schulckenius taketh occasion to delude his Reader yet I doe not alledge that manner of subiection which Card. Bellarmine doth as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth to wit the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall or of the temporall common wealth to the spirituall taking temporall common-wealth properly as it consisteth of temporall power and temporall subiection but the subiection of both common-wealths to one Prince or the subiection of all Christians to both common wealths to bee the cause why the order of charitie requireth that a Christian Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good 22. Belike D. Schulckenius would inferre that because the Pope is Lord of Ancona and Ferrara and ought to prefer caeteris paribus the good of the one before the other therefore the State of Ancona is subiect to the State of Ferrara or contrariwise or because the King of Spaine is King of Naples and Duke of Millan therefore the State of Millan is subiect to Naples or because a man hath two trades and ought to preferre the one before the other therefore the one is subiect to the other or because one man is a Cittizen of two cities therefore one of those cities is subiect to the other or because the eyes and eares are parts and members of the same body of man who ought therefore by order of charity to preferre the good of the more worthy and necessary member before the good of the lesse worthie and lesse necessarie therefore the eares are subiect to the eyes or contrariwise I euer affirmed that the temporall power among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall and that they doe not properly and formally as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth make one totall but two totall common-wealths although the same Christian man being considered diuerse waies is a part and member of both common-wealths and as in spirituall causes he is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall power which onely doth properly and formally make the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall common-wealth so in temporall causes hee is subiect to the ciuill power which onely doth properly and formally make the remporall or earthly kingdomes of this Christian world and because the spirituall common-wealth and good thereof is the more noble and more worthy therefore the same Christian man being a member and citizen of both common-wealths ought to preferre if other things be alike the spirituall good before temporall and not for any subiection of the temporall power or commonwealth to the spirituall But when men are not disposed to deale sincerely for truthes sake but are resolued to defend per fas nefas what they haue once taken in hand to maintaine and doe not fight for truth but for credit they little regard what they say so that with cunning smooth words they may colour their sayings in such sort as that they may blind dazel or confound the vnderstanding of the Reader And thus much concerning Card. Bellarmines first Reply 23. Now to the answer which I made to Card. Bellarmines second Reply by which hee pretended to prooue the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall D. Schulckenius m Pag. 343. replieth in this manner I answer that my Aduersary Widdrington saith nothing which doth weaken Card. Bellarmines argument That which Card. Bellarmine did assume to wit that a temporall Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment not onely least that hee should hurt in spirituals his owne subiects but also least that he should hurt other Christians my Aduersarie Widdrington doth grant And in this assumption or antecedent proposition all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist Besides when Widdrington denyeth that the temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them bee parts of one and the selfe same Christian common-wealth and afterwards granteth that a temporall King and those who are ciuilly subiect vnto him are members of the mysticall body and Citizens of the same spirituall Kingdome he doth manifestly contradict himselfe For what else is this that Christian Kings and their Subiects are members of the same mysticall body of Christ and Citizens of the same spirituall Kingdome I say what else is this then that Christian Kings and their Lay-Subiects are parts of the Christian common-wealth For the Christian common-wealth and the
mysticall bodie of Christ and the spirituall Kingdome of Christ are altogether the same of which common-wealth Kings with Laikes Bishops with Clerks are parts as oftentimes hath beene sayd In which Christian com-wealth and mysticall body and Kingdome of Christ all things are so well disposed and ordered that temporall things doe serue spirituall and ciuill power is subiect to Ecclesiasticall which conclusion my Aduersarie Widdrington hath many waies attempted to ouerthrow but he was not able And he was not able not onely to ouerthrow the conclusion but also he hath not beene able to weaken at all with any probable answer the first argument which Card. Bellarmine brought to prooue this conclusion which the Readers will easily perceiue if without perturbation of minde they will consider that which hath beene sayd by vs. 24 But this Reply of D. Schulckenius is as fraudulent and insufficient as the former for in effect it is only a repetition of his former Reply to which I haue already answered besides some fraudulent dealing which he hath vsed herein And first it is very true that I granted the antecedent proposition of this second Reply of Card. Bellarmine but that all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist in the antecedent proposition or assumption as D. Schulckenius affirmeth is very vntrue and I wonder that D. Schulckenius is not ashamed with such boldnesse to affirme the same The Antecedent proposition was that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporal gouernment if it hurt the spirituall good not onely of his owne Subiects but also of the Subiects of other Christian Princes and this proposition I did willingly grant him but the force of his argument did not consist only in this antecedent proposition as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth but in the consequence which hee inferred from this antecedent proposition or if wee will reduce his argument to a syllogisticall forme in his Minor proposition or assumption which was this but of this to wit that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment in the case aforesaid no other reason can be giuen but that both powers are members of the same body and one power or body subiect to the other And this consequence assumption or Minor proposition wherein the whole force of his argument did consist I vtterly denyed and I alledged as you haue seene an other plaine and perspicuous reason why a Christian Prince in the case aforesaid is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment to wit not for that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or for that they make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power but for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are parts and members not onely of the temporall but also of the spiritual common-wealth for which cause a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it is hurtfull to the spirituall good of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof he is a true part and member as I declared before 25. Secondly it is very vntrue that I doe any waie contradict my selfe as D. Schulckenius affirmeth first in denying that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them are parts of one and the selfe-same Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ and afterwards in granting that temporall Kings and their subiects are members of the same spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For these propositions temporall power is not per se subiect to spirituall power and temporall Princes are subiect to spirituall power are not repugnant or contradictorie one to the other as neither these propositions are contradictory Temporall power and spirituall power are not parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and temporall Princes are parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For contradiction according to Aristotle n Lib. 1. de Interp. cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the same thing and in the same manner But there is no man so ignorant that will affirme that the same thing and in the same manner is affirmed and denied in the aforesaid propositions for the subiect of the first propositions is temporall power in abstracto and it is taken formally and in the second propositions it is temporall power in concreto and it is taken onely materially and hath this sense that temporall Princes who haue both temporall power and also spirituall subiection are indeed subiect to the spirituall power and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power but onely materially who haue temporall power but formally as they haue spiritual subiection But D. Schulckenius doth manifestly contradict himselfe as I plainely shewed before o Cap. 2. first affirming That the Church of Christ is compounded of temporall and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers as he himselfe also confesseth and afterwards in denying that it is compounded of temporall or ciuill power which is formally ciuill 26. But marke now good Reader what fraude D. Schulckenius vseth in prouing that I doe manifestly contradict my selfe He would seeme to his Reader to proue that I affirme and deny one and the selfe same thing for this he taketh vpon him to proue and yet he proueth nothing else but that which I haue alwaies affirmed and neuer denied to wit that Christian Kings and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to the spirituall power thereof but the contradiction which hee pretended to proue he doth not proue at all nor make any shew of proofe thereof to wit that it is all one to say that Christian Princes and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to her spirituall power which I alwaies granted and that the temporall and spirituall power doe compound the Church or that the temporall power it selfe is per se subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which I euer denied and out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds haue cleerely proued the contrary and haue plainely shewed that temporall power doth only compound a temporall or ciuill body or common-wealth whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius doth heere expresly affirme and that the Church of Christ his mysticall body and spirituall Kingdome or Christian common-wealth taking the Christian common-wealth for the Church onely and not for the Christian world as it containeth temporall and spirituall power is compounded onely of spirituall and not of temporall power In which Church of Christ and also Christian world all things are so well ordered and disposed that temporall things ought by the intention of good Christians to serue spirituall things and temporall Princes although in spiritualls they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church yet in temporalls or as they haue temporall power they are not subiect but supreame and consequently the
Ecclesiasticall Canons and priuileges of Princes exempted from the coactiue power of Secular Magistrates and not at all from their directiue power but that they are subiect to the directiue power of Secular Princes in those things which doe not repugne to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and their state and consequently that Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles and long after were subiect to the coactiue power of temporall Princes Yea and the ancient Fathers especially S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius doe in expresse words affirme n Ad Rom. 13. that whether hee be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle hee is according to the doctrine of S. Paul subiect to Secular powers Only the Canonists yet not all of them as Pope Innoc Nauar and Coverruvias whom now Card Bellarm leauing the Diuines his ancient opinion vpon very weake grounds as you shall see doth follow do vehemently defend that Cleargie men are by the law of God and nature exempted from all subiection to Secular Princes 8 Now you shall see for what reasons Card Bellarmine was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable For if the reason saith he o In his Recognitions pag. 16. of the exemption of Clergie men be for that they are ministers of Christ who is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth and King of Kinges truely they are exempted de iure not onely from the power of Christian Kinges but also of Heathen Princes If Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason wherefore the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Christian Princes haue exempted Cleargie men I doe not say from all subiection for notwithstanding their exemption they still remaine subiects to temporall Princes but from paying of tributes from the tribunall of Secular Magistrates and such like be for that they are Ministers of Christ in spirituall but not in Secular matters I will not contradict this reason but from hence it doth not follow that therefore Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles when there were no such positiue lawes of their exemption were not in temporall causes subiect de iure to infidell Princes 9. But if Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason why Cleargie men are not onely by the Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes of Princes but also by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subiection to temporall Princes is for that they are Ministers of Christ who is the King of Kings this reason doth not proue but suppose that which is in question to wit that Cleargie men are by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subjection to temporall Princes which the common opinion of Diuines doth constantly deny whose opinion to account improbable or temerarious for such a weake reason which doth not proue but suppose the question were in my iudgement to exceede the limits of Christian prudence and modesty Neither is there any repugnance in naturall reason but that the Ministers of Christ who as it is probable was according to his humanity onely a spirituall and not a temporall King and although he was also a temporall King yet Secular Princes are his Ministers in temporalls and the Apostles their Successors are his Ministers in spiritualls might in temporall causes be truely and de iure subject to temporall Princes as the Apostles them-selues who are Christ his chiefe Ministers in his spirituall kingdome and Church were according to the expresse doctrine of the ancient Fathers as they are parts members and cittizens of the temporall common-wealth subiect to temporall Princes in their temporal kingdomes and in temporall affaires Neither doe those words of Saint Paul p Act. 28. I am constrained to appeale to Caesar signifie that hee was subject to Caesar onely de facto and not de iure more then if a Priest being vniustly oppressed by his Ordinary should appeale to the Pope and say that he was constrained for that hee had small hope to finde iustice at his Ordinaries hands to appeale to the Pope signifie thereby that hee was not subject de iure but onely de facto to the Pope 10. An other reason which mooued Card. Bellarmine to recall his former opinion and to affirme that Saint Paul did not appeale to Caesar as to his owne lawfull Iudge but as to the Iudge of the president of Iewrie and of the Iewes who did vniustly oppresse him was saith he q In tract contra Bard. cap. 3 pag. 51. for that the cause of which they did accuse him being spirituall to wit concerning the resurrection of Christ and the ceremonies of the law of Moyses could not by right appertaine to a Heathen Prince See the Acts of the Apostles chap. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 11. But truely it is strange that Card. Bellarmine durst so confidently remit his Reader to those chapters of the Acts of the Apostles to proue that the cause whereof Saint Paul was accused by the Iewes to the Tribune and President of Iewrie and wherefore he appealed to Caesar was spirituall and not appertaining by right to a Heathen Prince vnlesse hee will haue the raising of sedition and tumults and the committing of a crime worthy of death not to belong to a Heathen Prince For it is cleere by those chapters that the Iewes accused him of sedition and that he had offended Caesar and endeauoured to haue him therefore put to death We haue found saith one Tertullus r Act. 24. who went to accuse S. Paul before the President Felix this man pestiferous and raising seditions to all the Iewes in thâ— world c. And afterwards Å¿ Act. 25. the Iewes before the President Festus obiected against S. Paul many and greâ—uous crimes which they could not proue but they might easily haue proued that S. Paul did preach the Resurrection of Christ for that hee confessed the same before both the Presidents and King Agrippa Wherevpon King Agrippa said to S. Paul t Act. 26 A little thou perswadest me to become a Christian And before u Act. 25. S. Paul made answere to the President Festus that neither against the law of the Iewes nor against the Temple nor against Caesar haue I any thing offended which signifieth that he was accused that he had offended against Caesar And a little after saith S. Paul to Festus The Iewes I haue not hurt as thou very well knowest For if I haue hurt them or done any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dye but if none of those thinges be whereof they accuse me no man can giue me to them I appeale to Caesar 12 By all which it is very cleare that the Iewes sought to haue S. Paul put to death and that all the crimes which they obiected against him were false and consequently that he was not accused merely for preaching the resurrection of Christ which S. Paul would neuer haue denied but for raising sedition and tumults in the people and for doing wrong to Caesar Whereupon S. Chrysostome x Hem.
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