A CLEARE SINCERE AND MODEST confutation of the vnsound fraudulent and intemperate Reply of T. F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English IESVITE Wherein ALSO ARE CONFVTED THE chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine hath made against WIDDRINTONS Apologie for the right or Soueraigntie of temporall PRINCES BY Roger Widdrington an English Catholike LVKE 6. Benedicite maledicentibus vobis orate pro calumniantibus vos Blesse them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you IHS Permissu Superiorum 1616. THE CONTENTS of this Treatise The Epistle to English Catholikes Wherein 1. IT is shewed first that it is not safe for the consciences of Catholikes to adhere alwaies to the Pope and neglect the command of their temporall Prince 2 That if the Pope should exact from Catholikes that obedience which is due onely to their temporall Prince they should by obeying the Pope disobey the command of Christ and be truly traitours to their Prince 3 That it is possible for Popes to challenge such an obedience and that de facto Pope Boniface did challenge it of the King and inhabitants of France 4 That it is probable that the Pope that now is in condemning the late Oath of Allegeance and in challenging a power to depose temporall Princes demaundeth of English Catholikes the foresaid temporall Allegiance and vsurpeth that authoritie which Christ hath not giuen him 5 That although it should be granted that it is probable that the Pope hath such an authoritie yet so long as it is but probable it is titulus sine re a title which can neuer be put in execution without manifest disobedience to God and iniustice to temporall Princes 6 That the Pope neither is the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes nor as yet by any authenticall instrument hath defined that he hath power to depose temporall Princes and that therefore it is probable that he hath no such power 7 That the manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning my bookes and commanding me to purge my selfe and the fallacious dealing of my Aduersaries doth clearely shew that they in their consciences are not perswaded that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith 8 The causes of the beginning and increase of this doctrine are briefely insinuated and that if all temporall Princes would vse the like meanes to defend their Soueraigntie this controuersie would be quickly at an end 9 That Catholikes are bound to read and examine this question otherwise their ignorance will be willfull damnable and inexcusable 10 That they may lawfully read my bookes notwithstanding the Popes or rather Card. Bellarmines prohibition to the contrary and that I deserued not at their hands such vncharitable words and deeds for the loue and paines I haue taken for their sakes The Preface to the Reader Wherein M. r Fitzherberts Preface is confuted the matter which Widdrington handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truly probable and to be neither preiudiciall to his Maiesties seruice nor to the consciences of Catholikes and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against that rule of the Law brought by Widdrington In dubijs melior est conditio possidentis In doubts or disputable causes the condition of him who hath possession is to be preferred are confuted The first Part. wherein The authorities and testimonies of those learned Catholikes which Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation brought against the Popes power to depose Princes and which M. r Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer and for answer to them remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer are briefely and perspicuously examined and the Replyes which Doctor Schulckenius maketh against them are confuted Chap. 1. Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius an Abbot and famous writer of the order of S. Benedict is examined and the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against it are ouerthrowne Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer and Classicall Doctor is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are confuted Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctor of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against him are proued to be insufficient Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. r Doctor Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is briefely examined Chap. 5. Wherein are set downe the authorities of many English Catholikes who haue publikely declared their opinions as M. r George Blackwell M. r William Warmington M. r Iohn Barclay M. r William Barret Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor Cole both the Harpesfields Mr Edward Rishton M. r Henry Orton M. r Iames Bosgraue M. r Iohn Hart M. Iames Bishop related by Mr. Camden and those thirteene learned and vertuous Priests and most of them as yet liuing whose names I related in my Theologicall Disputation and whose protestation which I set downe verbatim in my Appendix to Suarez must needes suppose that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes as out of Suarez I conuince in this chapter Chap. 6. Wherein the authority of the Kingdome and State of France is largely debated the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against Petrus Pithaeus and Bochellus are confuted and Sigebert is defended from Schisme of which he is wrongfully taxed by Card. Baronius and D. Schulckenius The second part wherein All the principall arguments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians wheron Mr. Fitzherbert and all the other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes doe chiefely ground that doctrine together with the Replies which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same vnion and subordination are exactly examined Chap. 1. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is declared Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from those words of S. Paul Wee being many are one body in Christ to prooue that the temporall spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head is answered and Card. Bellarmine conuinced of manifest contradiction Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man which is so often vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body as the body and soule doe make one man is declared and cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to make nothing for his purpose Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes concerning this poynt are rehearsed Chap. 5. Wherein the first argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from
Princes who in things temporal are supreme and subiect to none but God So also there be only two subiections and obediences answerable thereunto to wit spirituall and temporall So that if such a power or obedience be not spirituall it must of necessitie be temporall and with the same certaintie or probabilitie that one is perswaded such an authoritie not to be spirituall he must be perswaded that it is temporall That authoritie is spirituall and due onely to the Pope which Christ hath giuen to his Church and the spirituall Pastours thereof All other supreme authoritie is temporall and due only to temporall Princes And therefore if it be probable as in very deede it is and as you may see it in this Treatise clearely conuinced so to be that the Pope hath no authority giuen him by Christ to depose Princes it is consequently probable that the aforesaid authoritie if there be any such authoritie on earth to depose Princes is not spirituall but temporall and that therfore whosoeuer granteth it to the Pope doth giue to him that obedience which is due to temporall Princes and consequently he doth against the expresse command of Christ not render to God and Caesar that which is their due 3. Well then thus you see that if the Pope should challenge that obedience as due to him by the institution of Christ which Christ hath not giuen him and which consequently is due only to temporall Princes he should vsurpe that authority which he hath not in so doing he should transgresse the law of God and Nature and those subiects who should adhere to him and yeeld him that pretended spirituall obedience should also transgresse the law of Christ and be not only pretended but true Traitors both to God and their Prince in not acknowledging their Prince to be their true Soueraigne by yeelding that obedience which is due to him to an other and so by taking from him his supreme power or soueraingtie and giuing it to an other Prince which in very deed is to take the Diademe which doth signifie his supreme authoritie off from his head and place it vpon the head of an other 4. Now there is none of you as I suppose of so meane vnderstanding that can imagine that the Pope is so infallible in his opinion iudgement or any declaratiue command grounded thereon as that he can not possibly erre therein and challenge that authority as due to him by the institution of Christ which neuerthelesse Christ hath not giuen him but it belongeth only to temporall Princes This you may see by experience in Pope Boniface the eight who pretended that Philip the faire the most Christian KING of France was subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and declared them to be heretikes who should beleeue the contrarie and that he was a temporall Monarch of the Christians world and therefore that the kingdome of France by reason of the disobedience and rebellion of Philip their King was falne into the handes of the See Apostolike for which cause Pope Boniface was taxed by many learned Catholikes of great impudencie pride and arrogancie and his extrauagant Vnam Sanctam which he made to curbe the said King of France declaring that the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall and temporall power to spirituall authoritie was reuersed by Pope Clement the fift the next Successour but one to Pope Boniface who declared that by the definition and declaration of Pope Boniface in his extrauagant Vnam SanctaÌ„ no preiudice should arise to the King and kingdome of France and that by it neither the King kingdom or inhabitants of France should be more subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things should be vnderstood to be in the same state wherin they were before the said definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King Kingdome and Inhabitants of France The like temporall authoritie Pope Sixtus the fift if he had liued would also haue challenged for that as I haue been credibly informed by diuers Iesuites of good account who then liued at Rome hee did intend to suppresse Card. Bellarmines first Tome of Controuersies because he did not with the Canonists grant to the Pope this direct temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world 5 So that the onely controuersie now is whether the Pope hath de facto erred or no in declaring the oath of allegiance to be vnlawful and to containe in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation vpon this supposall that it is a point of Faith that the Pope hath authoritie giuen him by Christ to depose Princes which is the substance of the oath as Fa Suarez a Lib 6 Defens Fidei fere â—er totum acknowledgeth and the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee as M.r. Fitzherbert b In the end of his Preface in expresse words confesseth Now you may see if you please to reade that I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise that it is probable that the authoritie which the Pope claimeth to depose Princes is not true but vsurped not granted him by Christ but giuen him by men contrarie to those expresse words of CHRIST c Math. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God And therefore consider I pray you in what danger you stand of doing great iniury to your Soueraigne and committing flat treason against his Royall person and Crowne if you rashly and without due examination follow the Popes opinion iudgement or also declaratiue command grounded thereon who vnder pretence of demanding of you a profession of his spirituall authoritie and your spirituall obedience exacteth in very deede not spirituall allegiance but that obedience which is probably thought by many learned Catholikes to be a meere temporal allegiance and due onely to your temporall Prince 6 But obserue deare Countrimen a more manifest and dangerous gulfe into which for want of due consideration you may easily cast your selues For if once you grant that it is probable that it is a controuersie that it is a disputable question as in very deed it is and as I thinke very few of you who haue studied this question are perswaded to the contrarie that the right title power and authoritie which the Pope challengeth to depose Princes is no true title but pretended a meere temporall and not a true spirituall authoritie although I should grant you also for Disputation sake of which as yet I doe not dispute that it is also probable that the said title is good and that the Pope hath such an authoritie to depose Princes giuen him by Christ yet there is none of you so simple but if you will duely consider will presently perceiue that this title so long as it is in controuersie is titulus sinere a meere title which so long as it is disputable and debated on either side can neuer be put in practise by any man what opinion so euer he
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
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.
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
argument therfore I will set downe word by word only turning his speech to the Priests which he applieth to the Kings Maiestie 8 For to take away all manner of euasion saith Suarez d In Desens lib. 6. cap. 3. I demand whether those Priests doe vnderstand that the sentence of the Pope deposing a baptized Queene for crimes may be iust or they beleeue that it is alwaies vniust The first they will not in my opinion affirme for otherwise they should promise a most wicked thing to wit not to obey a iust sentence which implieth in it a iust command For if the sentence bee iust the command also which enioyneth subiects to obserue it must also be iust seeing that otherwise it cannot be put in execution Also if the sentence of deposition denounced against a Queene may bee iust it will also be effectuall therefore it hath the effect of that punishment which it imposeth Wherefore seeing that the punishment imposed by the sentence of deposition from her Kingdome is to depriue her actually or effectually of her dominion and propertie to her Kingdome a iust sentence doth effectually depriue her of her Kingdome therefore it is against iustice and obedience due vnto the Pope to resist that sentence and to defend the Queenes person against the execution of that sentence therefore hee that beleeueth the first and neuerthelesse promiseth this second doth promise a thing cleerly vniust and wicked 9 And besides it implieth a contradiction to be willing to yeeld obedience and allegeance as thinking thy selfe bound so to doe to one whom thou knowest to be by a iust declaration and sentence effectually deposed from her Kingdome As if the Pope himselfe should exact of Christians a promise that notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of deposing him for any crime euen for heresie denounced by whatsoeuer generall Councell they will defend him in his See and will yeelde him the same obedience and allegeance their promise were wicked for that it were a wicked thing and against the Church Faith Such therfore is the promise of those Priests if the aforesaid sentence against the Queene bee supposed to bee iust This therefore those Priests without doubt will not admit neither also are they as I thinke so inconsiderate of their affaires that if they grant the Popes sentence denounced against a Queene may be iust neuerthelesse they will deny that against the Queene of England it may haue the same iustice For what greater immunitie or innocencie can they alledge in the Queene of England then in other Princes who haue beene rebells to the Romane Church or forsakers and impugners of the faith Or although they do not acknowledge that the Queene for that time had not committed any thing worthy of deposition how doe they know that for the time to come she cannot and yet their promise is absolute notwithstanding any authoritie or any sentence of Excommunication denounced or to be denounced against the Queene or euery one borne within her Maiesties Dominions c. Wherefore there is no doubt but that the ground of this promise and profession is that such a sentence cannot bee iust Wherefore from hence we euidently conclude that those Priests by the aforesaid words do professe that the sentence of deposition against the Queene can neither be valid nor iust For in very deede this they doe professe when they promise not to obey nor to obserue such a sentence 10. Whereupon we do moreouer conclude that those Priests doe professe that the Pope hath not power to denounce such a sentence seeing that for no other cause they doe beleiue the sentence to be vniust but for that it is giuen without power and Iurisdiction in the Pope to depose a Queene Neither can those Priests alledge in such a sentence any other cause of iniustice which is perpetuall and may be a ground of this part of their profession for their profession doth not speake of a sentence alreadie denounced but absolutely of a sentence denounced or to be denounced against the Queene therfore it doth comprehend euery sentence whether it bee giuen the partie being heard or not heard whether for disagreement in religion or for any other crime or cause whatsoeuer Wherefore the iniustice which those Priests do suppose to bee in that sentence and wherupon they ground their profession is no other but for that they beleeue that it cannot proceede from a lawfull power and Iurisdiction And therefore I conclude that they professe that the Pope hath not power and Iurisdiction to giue a sentence of deposition against the Queene for any cause Thus argueth Father Suarez So that it is euident that those thirteene reuerend Priests must of necessitie suppose if they will haue their protestation and promise to be iust and lawfull that the Pope hath no power to depriued Princes of their Regall right and authoritie 11. And by this fift testimonie it is also apparant that not only M. Doctour Barclay and Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Sculckenius against me vntruely affirmeth but many other English Catholikes to omit those other learned Catholikes of other Countries of whom I haue spoken before and the Kingdome and State of France of which I will speake beneath g In the next Chapter are of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions Which also may moreouer be confirmed by the petition which some English Catholikes did exhibite to Queene Elizabeth deceased after the discouerie of Parries conspiracie wherein these expresse wordes are contained In consideration of all which necessarie points we doe protest before the true liuing God that all and euery Priest and Priests who haue at any time conuersed with vs haue recognized your Maiestie their vndoubted and lawfull Queene tam de iure quam de facto who neuerthelesse was at that time and long before depriued of her Princely power right and dignitie by the publike sentence of Pope Pius the fift 12. And to these authorities we may add the testimonies set downe in the end of Mr. Blackwells Latine examination of Bishop Watson Abbot Fernam Doctor Cole Iohn Harpesfield and Nicolas Harpesfield all of them very famous and learned Catholikes who vpon the publishing of the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth being examined by the Magistrate in the yeare 1578. and demanded whether notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence of the Pope denounced or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene they did thinke that shee was their true and lawfull Queene and that they and all other English and Irish men did as Subiects owe to her Maiesty obedience faith and loyaltie as to their lawfull and true Queene and Soueraigne Prince they did all with vniforme consent acknowledge and confesse that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence or declaration of the Pope already denounced or hereafter to be denounced
against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
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
follow in speculation without doing the Prince who is deposed by the Pope manifest wrong and if he be a subiect by committing that detestable crime of treason in a most high degree 7 For if any one of you should be inlawfull possession of a house iewell or any other thing wherevnto an other man pretendeth a title and claimeth a power to dispose thereof and perchance it is also probable that his title is in very deede the better and his Lawiers doe bring strong reasons and euidences to confirme the same would not you thinke that it were a manifest wrong as in deed it were and against the knowne rules of iustice grounded vpon the light of reason that your Aduersarie or any other in his behalfe notwithstanding the probabilitie of his title should put you out of possession and take it away from you by violence before the Iudge had decided the controuersie 8 And if any one should Reply and say that the Pope is our Soueraignes Iudge to whom also all Christian Princes are subiect and that hee hath decided this controuersie betwixt him and our Prince and defined that this his title to depose our Prince and all other Christian Princes is a true and not onely pretended a spirituall and not a temporall title he is manifestly deceiued For neither is the Pope the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes wherin they are supreme and subiect to none but God neither hath the Pope as yet decided this controuersie or defined by any Generall Councell or any other authenticall instrument for I will not at this time contend what authority the Pope hath to define matters of faith without a Generall Councell that this title and authoritie which hee challengeth to depose Princes is a true spirituall title and an authoritie granted him by the institution of Christ For concerning this point Popes and Emperours haue euer beene at great variance as well said Fa Azor d Tom. 2. lib. 11 cap q. 5.8 and it is in controuersie among Catholike Doctors as I haue conuinced in this Treatise and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge as Abbot Trithemius e See beneath part 1. cap. 1. doth well affirme 9 And if any one should perchance imagine that his Holinesse that now is hath by his late Breues decided the controuersie and defined that hee hath authoritie to depose Princes hee is also most grosely mistaken both for that there is not so much as one word mentioned in any of his Breues concerning his authoritie to depose Princes but onely in generall words he declareth that Catholikes ought not to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation but what those many things be he doth not expresse and perchance he might imagine at the first sight as Card. Bellarmine did that the Popes power to excommunicate to binde and loose to dispence in oathes is denyed in the oath and that it was framed to make a distinction betwixt Protestants and Catholikes touching points of Religion al which how vntrue they are I haue cleerely shewed in my Theologicall Disputation but especially for this reason hee is fowly mistaken because there is not in the Breues any one of those words which according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other Diuines related by me in the aforesaid Disputation f Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 32. seq are required to make an infallible definition and finall decision of a point of faith Neither is euery Breue or Apostolicall letter of the Pope although it be registred in the body of the Canon Law among the Popes Decretall letters a sufficient instrument to define matters of faith for that in them is commonly contained onely the Popes opinion concerning some doubtfull case or question and not a finall decision or definition which all Catholikes are bound to follow Otherwise it must needes be granted that Popes haue defined in their Breues false doctrine and also heresie as may bee seene in the Decretall letters and Breues of Pope Celestine the first Pope Nicolas the third and Pope Boniface the eight as also I obserued in the aforesaid Disputation g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 47.48 10. Yea both the very manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning the oath in such generall words for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation not declaring any one of those many things although he hath been in some sort vrged therunto by his Maiesty h In his Apologie pag. 7. num 5. we also his Catholike subiects whom it most concernes haue most humbly and most earnestly requested it at his hands i Disput The olog in the Epistle to his Holinesse and the forbidding of my bookes also in such generall words not declaring whether they are forbidden for the matter which they handle or for the manner or in respect of the persons against whom they are written or for some other cause but especially and which is more strange and contrary to the practise of all tribunals the commanding of mee to purge my selfe forthwith and that vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures without signifying any crime at all either in generall or particular whereof I should purge my selfe are manifest signes to a prudent man that latet anguis in herba and that they themselues doe distrust their owne cause Can any prudent man imagine that if his Holinesse or the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Inquisition were fully perswaded that the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith defined by the Church so to be as Card. Bellarmine and some few other especially Iesuits would enforce the Christian world to beleeue and that they were able to conuince the same either by holy Scriptures Apostolicall traditions decrees of sacred Councels or any other conuincing reason they would forbeare to signifie the same especially being so greatly vrged thereunto 11. Besides the manner also of my Aduersaries handling this cōtrouersie in corrupting my words peruerting my meaning concealing my answers altering the true state of the question confounding the Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences and being requested to insist vpon any one place of holy Scripture authoritie of sacred Councell or any other Theologicall reason which they shall thinke to be most conuincing that thereby the controuersie may quickly bee at an end their flying from one place of holy Scripture to another from one Councell to another from one Theologicall reason to another their fallacious arguing from the facts of the Apostles yea also and of those Prophets who were no Priests which were done miraculouslie and by an extraordinarie power or by the speciall command of Almightie God to prooue the like ordinarie power to be in spirituall Pastours from the practises of certaine Popes who were resisted therein both by Christian Princes and people to inferre the practise of the Church which is a congregation of all the faithfull
c. from the opinion of very many Doctours or also of the Church onelie probably iudging or thinking to conclude the faith of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining from the Popes power to command temporals to gather the Popes power to dispose of temporals from the Popes power to impose temporall punishments to deduce a power in the Pope to inflict or vse temporall punishments or which is all one to constraine with temporall punishments from a power which is granted to the Church as the Church is taken for the Christian world consisting both of temporall and spirituall power to conclude the said power to be in the Church as the Church is taken for the spiritual Kingdome of Christ which consisteth only of spirituall power and such like pittifull shifts to confound therby their Readers vnderstanding at the last in regard either of their presence or preheminēce in the Court of Rome to cause by their euill information his Holinesse to consent to the forbidding of their Aduersaries bookes that thereby neither their legerdemaine and fraudulent dealing may bee laid open to the view of the world nor the Reader may see what we alledge against them or in defence of our selues but in that lame and corrupt manner as they shal please to deliuer it doth euidently shew that they are not desirous to satisfie mens vnderstandings and to search and finde out the truth by a sincere debating of this dangerous and difficult controuersie but rather that they themselues doe suspect their owne cause which because they haue once taken in hand to defend they will per fas nefas by fraud and violence seeke still to maintaine But truth will neuer be ouerthrowen it may for a time by fraud and violence be suppressed but maugre all the sleights of the impugners thereof it will in the end preuaile Whereas my plaine sincere and perspicuous handling this question and requesting my Aduersaries that they will insist vpon any one text of holy Scripture which shall seeme to them to be the most pregnant place whether it be whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. Feed my sheepe If you shall haue Secular iudgments c. or any other or vpon any one decree of Popes or generall Councells whether it be can Nos Sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos or any other whether it be the Councell of Trent of Lyons of Laterane which now of late is so greatly vrged by some whereof in former times was made so small account for the proofe of this point or vpon any one Theologicall reason which shall seeme to them to be the most vnanswerable whether it be taken from the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or from the necessitie of defending the Church repressing haeresies punishing wicked Princes defending innocent people or from the promise which Christian Princes make to the Church either in Baptisme or at their Coronation or any other which shall like them best protesting withall k In Resp Apologet nu◠1. that if any man shall shew by any convincing reason that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith and consequently the contrary not probable I will presently yeeld neither shall any hope of gaine or feare of punishment withdraw me from embracing forthwith and publishing also the truth doe sufficiently demonstrate that my only desire is to finde out and follow the truth in this controuersie which doth so neerely touch our soules and saluation and our obedience due by the law of Christ to God and our temporall Prince 13 Wherefore my earnest request at this time and vehement desire onely is Deare Country-men that you will be pleased to examine diligently your spirituall and temporall obedience your dutie to GOD CAESAR and that you will be led and guided by true reason and not caried away by blinde affection hope of preferment and credit or feare of disgrace and want and not to be desirous so to please the Pope as to neglect your dutie and obedience which by the command of Christ and vnder paine of eternall damnation you owe to your temporall Prince Be not deceiued God is not mocked Coeca obedientia blinde obedience in this case is dangerous and damnable and your ignorance herein you hauing now so iust cause to doubt and therefore according to the doctrine of all Diuines are bound to examine the truth will be affected grosse wilfull and culpable like to that whereof the Prophet spake l Psal 35. Noluit intelligere vt bene ageret hee would not vnderstand that he might doe well For although it be lawfull and also very commendable to obey your Superiours command without examining what authoritie he hath to impose vpon you such a command when by obeying you incurre no danger of disobeying God of wronging your neighbour whom by the law of God you are bound not to wrong or of disobeying another Superiour whom by the law of God you are bound also to obey yet this is also certaine that when there is a controuersie that your obeying an earthly Superiour is a disobedience to God or a rebellion against another supreme Superiour whom God hath commanded you to obey vnlesse you duely examine the matter and in what manner by obeying that earthly Superiour although it be the Pope you doe not disobey God nor commit rebellion against your Prince whom God commandeth you to obey no pretence of aduancing Catholike Religion of deuotion to the See Apostolike or of any other good end whatsoeuer can excuse you from committing a mortall sinne 14 The pretence of furthering the common good of aduancing Catholike Religion of depressing haeresies of punishing wicked Princes of defending innocent people and such like may be colourable clokes to excuse many damnable and deuilish attempts many wicked backbytings slāderings and other wrongs both by words and deeds as by late experience may be seene in the execrable murthers of the two most Christian Kings of France in the abhominable Conspiracie of the Powder Traitours in the vncharitable proceedings against the Appellants and those who fauoured them and and now against those Catholikes who do any waies fauour the Oath to omit many other exorbitant dealings vnder this pretence of furthering the common good which if it were needfull I could make manifest but assure your selues that neither good ends are sufficient to excuse bad practises nor the zeale of the person is a sufficient warrant to iustifie all his actions nor iniustice is to be done to any man be he neuer so wicked 15 Call to minde I beseech you the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and the practise of the primitiue Church obserue the causes of the beginning and increase of this practise and doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and the continuall contradiction thereof and you shall finde that no man of any learning can perswade his conscience that this doctrine is certaine and of faith For the zeale of Pope Gregorie the seuenth the wickednesse
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
Wherefore that Dialogue which D. Schulckenius maketh betwixt the Pope and a conuicted heretike whose goods are without any controuersie confiscated both by the Ciuill and Canon Law is vnaptly applyed to the deposing of Kings which hath beene and is at this present in controuersie among Catholikes Besides that this Dialogue also supposeth that the Pope is in possession of his authoritie to depose Kings and that Kings are not in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope and that the Pope is a Iudge of temporall Kings in temporall causes and to punish them with temporall punishments by way of coercion and also that the aforesayd rule fauoureth the Iudge and not the person conuented before the Iudge when the authority of the Iudge ouer the person conuented is not sufficiently knowen all which as I haue shewed before are very vntrue And by this thou maiest perceiue good Reader how insufficient are the exceptions which D. Schuclkenius bringeth against my argument grounded in the aforsaid rule of the Law as in very deed are al the rest of his Replies against my Apology as God willing ere long for I cannot answer fully and exactly as I intend all my Aduersaries at once I will most cleerely shew 75. Consider now do are Country-men first the vnsincere dealing of this my Aduersarie T. F. who concealeth the chiefest part of opinion and doctrine for the securing of his Maiesty of the constant loyaltie and allegeance wherein all his Catholike Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby he may cause his Maiestie to bee iealous of my fidelity and to account me no good Subiect as this man slanderously affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or child of the Church as I professe my selfe to be but that I am falne into flat heresie from which I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe for impugning that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is grounded vpon such assured and solid foundation as this man forsooth heere hath signified but how guilfully and vnsoundly you haue partly seene and he will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter where also his particular frauds and falsehoods I will more particularly and manifestly lay open to his owne shame and confusion But for all his slanderous words I trust in God that it wil appear to all men that insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui z Psal 26. mentita est iniquit as sibi that false witnesses haue risen vp against me and that wickednesse hath be lied her selfe and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a good Catholike and a dutifull childe of the Catholike Church as partly I haue prooued heere already and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter In the meane time let Mr. Fitzherbert examine well his Catholike faith and consider what a kinde of Catholike hee is who so stiffely maintaineth vncertaine opinions for the Catholike faith which if it bee truely Catholike cannot be exposed to any falshood or vncertainty as this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which with Catholike faith hee pretendeth truely to beleeue may in very deede bee false and without all doubt is vncertaine and questionable among Catholikes 76. Secondly consider how vntruely Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that my manner of disputing this question probably concerning the Popes power not to depose Princes and the lawfull taking of the Oath doth not onely giue no security to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safety and how vnlearnedly hee argueth from speculation to practise For although I should admit not onely for Disputation sake as onely I doe but also positiuely confesse that in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes whereas with that affirmatiue part of the question to wit whether it bee probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes I do not intermeddle but I do only handle the negatiue part and doe affirme that it is probable he hath no such power which manner of disputing against such Aduersaries who hold it not onely probable but certaine that he hath such a power can in no sort be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as I cleerely shewed before neuerthelesse this my Aduersarie very vnsoundly from hence inferreth that because in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore in practise it is lawfull to concurre to the actuall deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their Kingdomes or for Subiects notwithstanding any sentence of deposition to beare armes against them so long as this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth disputable and vndecided Wherfore my firme resolute and constant opinion is that the Pope hath not power to dispēce or absolue any of his Maiesties Subiects what opinion soeuer in speculation they follow concerning the Popes power to depose Princes from anie promissorie parts of the Oath which onely doe belong to practise and as for the assertory parts of the Oath which belong to speculation they are not subiect to the Popes power of dispencing as I shewed at large in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. 77. Now whether this my doctrine doth not onely giue no securitie to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as this my Aduersarie to procure his Maiesties displeasure against me falsely and vnlearnedly affirmeth if the Pope should denounce any sentence of depriuation against him I leaue to the iudgement of any sensible man Neither is it vnusuall that an opinion or doctrine may in speculation bee probable which yet in practise it is not lawfull to follow as may bee seene in the ministring of corporall physicke and of those Sacraments which are necessarie to saluation For although it bee probable that such a medicine will cure such a dangerous disease for that learned Physicians are of that opinion although other learned Physicians thinke the contrarie to be true or that such a matter or forme be sufficient to the validitie of the Sacrament for example sake of Baptisme because learned Diuines hold it to bee sufficient although other learned Diuines bee of the contrarie opinion and so in speculation both opinions be probable yet in practise wee are bound by the law of charitie to apply to our neighbour those remedies either spirituall or corporall which are out of question and controuersie and to leaue those that are questionable if certaine and vndoubted remedies can be had So likewise althogh it be probable that such a house or land doth not by a lawfull title belong to him who is in lawfull possession thereof for that learned Lawyers are of that opinion although other learned Lawyers thinke the contrarie to bee true and so in speculation both opinions bee probable yet in practise wee are bound by the rules of Iustice not to dispossesse
of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo◠bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in
to the Germans or French by the Popes sole authoritie but by the consent suffrages and authoritie also of the people which neuerthelesse are principall authorities which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Finally others although they be of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for heresie or which is a farre different question to declare them to be deposed for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause but doth absolutely in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good extend this pretended authoritie 19. Neither is it true that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion as M. Fitzherbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affirmeth I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua for that not onely his booke but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes And although I had vrged his authority in that sort as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe not for that I thinke the authority of an heretike barely considered by it selfe to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith but for that Marsilius writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies he should by Catholike Authours who write of heresies as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others bee particularly taxed of those heresies and yet his doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes which was the principall subiect of his booke should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous for this is a forcible argument that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine 20. True also it is that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion for that hee vehemently impugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes both against Pope Gregorie the seuenth and also Paschalis the second calling it a noueltie not to say an heresie and answering as he saith with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power But Sigebert saith D. Schulckenius was a Schismatike and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth and Paschalis the second are condemned by the Catholike Romane Church But truly it is strange and greatly to be lamented to see some Catholikes now adaies especially who professe sanctitie of life and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame and slander other Catholikes who dislike their opinions or proceedings with such enormious crimes as are Schisme heresie and Apostacie What reason had Card. Baronius of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same to call Sigebert a Schismatike he being by no other Authour that I haue read before Baronius charged with that heinous crime but was euer reputed a learned vertuous and religious Catholike truely I cannot in any wise perceiue Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church or a refusing to obey the Pope as he is the visible head of the Church and Christ his Vicegerent on earth 21 For obserue diligently saith Card. Caietane y 2a 2a q. 39. ar 2. in resp ad 2m that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies First in regard of the thing commanded Secondly in regard of the person commanding and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge or commander For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence to wit for that he will not fulfill that which the Pope hath commanded as to abstaine from such a warre to restore such a State c. although hee should most greiuously sinne yet he is not for this a Schismatike For it falleth out and that often that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthelesse to be his Superior For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence but also his immediate iudgement or sentence being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme nor any other crime For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things and to be warie of dangers And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically so much the easier by how much he is more potent and feareth no reuenger on earth But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sentence in regard of his office not acknowledging him to be his Superiour although he do beleiue he is then properly he is a Schismatike And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope or of the Church so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him to acknowledge him for Superiour c. Thus Card. Caietane 22. Now what Authour euer said that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape and not Gregorie to be the true and lawful Pope True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some as Trithemius z In verbo Sigebertus relateth for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church wrote letters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth whih did not become his profession but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church or that he refused to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church and in deposing Gregorie and creating Guibert Pope neither D. Schulckenius nor any other is able to prooue out of any ancient or moderne writer 23. True also it is that Sigebert was of this opinion that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Emperour and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Gregorie and answered as hee saith all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour and refused to obey Pope Gregories command wherein hee strictly ordained that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour But considering that the doctrine for the Popes power to dethrone temporall Princes and the practise thereof was then new in the Church of God and neuer
heard of before for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie not to say an heresie and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor a Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. concerning this point betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it saith Trithemius and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie saith Almainus and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine saith Pithaeus and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris to omit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen doth most clearely confirme the same it is neither reason nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme for impugning that new doctrine and practise which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God And therefore many complained saith Azâ—â— in the same place that Gregorie the seuenth did depriâ—e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire 24 For although the Bishops of Rome saith Onuphrius a man as Posseuine confesseth of exceeding great reading and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories were before honoured as the heads of Christian Religion and the Vicars of Christ and the Successours of Peter yet their authoritie was not extended any farther then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith But yet they were subiect to the Emperours all things were done at the Emperours backe they were created by them and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge or decree any thing concerning them Gregorie the seuenth the first of all the Bishops of Rome being aided with the forces of the Nortmans trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis a woman most potent in Italie and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes who were at ciuill warre among them selues contrarie to the custome of his ancestours contemning the authoritie and power of the Emperour when hee had gotten the Popedome did presume I doe not say to excommunicate but also to depriue the Emperour by whom if he was not chosen he was at the least confirmed of his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before that age For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius Anastasius Leo Iconomachus I do nothing regard Thus Onuphrius b Lib 4. de varia creat Rom Pont. 25 Lastly it is also true that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie and Pope Paschalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church or the Catholike Romane Church as D. Schulckenius affirmeth vnlesse by the Catholike Church or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls and Diuines of Rome who are appointed by the Pope for the examining permitting and forbidding of bookes which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church is altogether vntrue Neither is it knowne for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card Bellarmine haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls and especially of Card Bellarmine who hath been pleased to be a Iudge witnesse and accuser in his owne cause been prohibited and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith but the cause wherefore they are forbidden is not therein expressed neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand of what crime either in particular or in generall I am to purge my selfe although in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoe c The 24. of Iune 1614. I haue most humbly and instantly desired it and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue that they haue no small distrust in their cause and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith as Card Bellarmine and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue 26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes wherefore bookes may be forbidden and which in generall are reduced to these two heads either that they are repugnant to faith or else to good manners which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight do in so large yet doubtfull a manner extend that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie but some Correctour or other may easily except against it as those bookes are to be corrected which are against Ecclesiasticall libertie immunitie and Iurisdiction so that if a Canonist be the Corrector he will haue that blotted ouâ— which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes c. vnlesse it can be proued that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine Neither can Card Baronius nor Card Bellarmine be excused from greeuous detraction in charging Sigebert who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned vertuous and religious Catholike with that execrable crime of schisme for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account vnlesse they can proue that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church or disobey the Popes command as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church and the Successour of S. Peter 27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope and whether those who adhere to a false Pope perswading themselues for probable reasons that hee is the true and lawfull Pope are to be condemned of Schisme and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof This only at this present I will demand that if to reiect the testimonie of Sigebert or any such like Authour it be sufficient without any other proofe to say as Mr Fitzherbert answereth that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many others of the contrarie side that they liuing in the time of the Popes who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours for this hath euer been a great controuersie saith Azor betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other wrote partially in their fauour May
Pastors in such sort that Christian Princes are not onely bound to obey the command of their spirituall Pastors in things which doe concerne Christian faith and religion but also if they be disobedient they may with spirituall punishments he punished and compelled therevnto Thirdly we doe also agree in this that Christian Princes are bound to obey the commanding power of spirituall Pastours not only in those things which of their owne nature are Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but also in things temporall when by accident they become spirituall in so much that a spirituall Pastor hath authoritie to command a temporall Prince to vse or not vse his temporall power when it is necessarie or hurtfull to Catholike faith and religion but this is nothing else then that temporall Princes in things spirituall for whether they be per se and of their owne nature or onely by accident spirituall it little importeth are subiect to the commanding power of spirituall Pastors as likewise all temporall causes and crimes whether of their owne nature or onely by accident they become temporall are subiect to the commanding and coerciue power of temporall Princes 2 But the controuersie betwixt me and Card Bellarmine is concerning two things the first is concerning the commanding power to wit whether temporall Princes are subiect to the commanding power of spirituall Pastors not onely in things spirituall and in temporall when they become spirituall but also in meere temporall things for this is properly temporall power taking temporall power in abstracto to be subiect to the spirituall For as a Musician can not truly be said to be subiect as he is a Musician and in all things belonging to Musicke to a Physition as he is a Physition for that Musicke is not per se and of it owne nature referred to Physicke and if Musicke were per se and of it owne nature subiect to Physicke a Musician as he is a Musician and in all things belonging to Musicke should be subiect to a Physician as he is a Physician for which cause a Shipwright as he is a Shipwright hath intrinsecall reference to a Nauigator for that the Art of making ships is per se and of it owne nature ordayned for nauigation So also if the temporall power among Christians be per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power it must follow that temporall Princes who are Christians are as they are temporall Princes and in all things belonging to temporall power subiect to spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours And if temporall Princes who be Christians are not subiect as they are temporall Princes to spirituall Pastors as they are spirituall Pastors the temporall power among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power 3 The second thing which is in controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastors to wit whether temporall Princes are subiect to the coerciue power of spirituall Pastors in such sort that spirituall Pastors especially the Pope who is the supreme Pastour of all Christians haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes to dispose of all their temporalls and to punish them temporally or with all kinde of temporall punishments in case they will not obey their iust command And this is the maine point and principall scope at which both the Canonists who hold that the Pope hath directly power in temporals in habit although the vse they haue committed to temporall Princes and also the Diuines who hold that hee hath onely indirectly that is in order to spirituall good power in temporalls doe chiefly aime Now concerning these two points there be three different opinions of Catholikes 4 The first opinion is of the Canonists who holding that the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head doth consist both of temporall and spirituall power doe consequently hold that all Christian Princes not only as they are Christians but also as they are temporall Princes are in all temporall causes subiect to the commanding power and in all temporall punishments subiect also to the coerciue power of the Pope whom they make the supreme both temporall and spirituall Monarch of the world and to haue directly both temporall and spirituall power although the vse exercise and execution of his temporall power he hath out of the territories of the Church committed to Secular Princes as to his Vice-Royes Vicegerents or Deputies and this doctrine some Lawyers held to be so certaine that they were not afraid to condemne the contrarie as hereticall for which they are worthily taxed by Coverruvias d In Regula peccatū 2. part Relect. §. 9. num 7. of great temeritie But with this opinion for that it is commonly reiected by all Diuines and confuted also by Card Bellarmine himselfe e Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. a cap. 2. I will not at this time intermeddle 5 The second opinion is of many Schoole-Diuines especially of these later times who although they seeme greatly to mislike the Canonists opinion in that the Canonists hold the Pope as Pope to haue directly not only spirituall but also temporall power and to be both a temporall Monarch and also a spirituall Prince and Pastour of the whole Christian world yet in effect they doe giue as full and ample authoritie to the Pope ouer Christian Princes as the Canonists do for whatsoeuer the Canonists affirme that the Pope can directly effect by his temporall power the same doe the Diuines affirme that he can effect indirectly and in order to spirituall good by his spirituall power And therefore although they will not grant that the Pope hath formally temporall power but only spirituall yet they grant that this spirituall power of the Pope is virtually and in effect temporall and that therefore the Pope by his spirituall power can in order to spirituall good depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes dispose of all their temporalls punish them with all kinde of temporall punishments and finally whatsoeuer temporall Princes can by their temporall power doe for the temporall good they affirme that the Pope by his spirituall power can doe for the spirituall good Yea some of them doe so extend this spirituall good and spirituall harme taking spirituall harme not only for spirituall crimes as heresie Apostacie and such like but also for all temporall crimes as are drunkennesse fornication and the like that they giue a more ample power to the Pope to depriue Princes of their kingdomes then by temporall lawes is vsually granted to temporall Princes to depriue their subiects of their lands who for whoredome drunkennesse and many other temporall crimes can not vsually by the lawes of any Christian kingdome bee depriued of their lands and possessions 6. The third opinion is of many other learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers whom I cited before f Part. 1. per totum who although they agree with
dependeth vpon the other now his argument proceedeth thus Members doe depend vpon the head the Pope is head of the Church therefore Kings who are members of the Church doe depend vpon the Pope which are two distinct arguments yet both of them fallacious and insufficient to proue that the temporall power it selfe or which is all one that temporall Kings in temporall causes are subiect to the Pope as you haue seene before 9. Thirdly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that the assertion of D. Barclay comparing these two powers to two shoulders of the Church which are connected to one head who is Christ doth appertaine to the heresie of this time which affirmeth that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church and that D. Barclay doth of his owne accord grant thus much M. Iohn Barclay answereth that Card. Bellarmine doth in this both slander D. Barclay and also maketh the Church and Pope odious to Princes For what Protestant reading this may not with very good reason conclude that Catholikes according to Card. Bellarmines doctrin when they say that the Pope is the visible head of the Church and that this is a point of Catholike-faith doe vnderstand that he is head and Gouernour not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill causes what wise men of this world will not relate these sayings to Princes and what Prince can without indignation here them Neither did D. Barclay euer make any doubt but that the Pope Christs Vicar in earth was head in Ecclesiasticall causes neither did Catholike faith euer teach that he was head in ciuill causes Only Christ is head of Popes and Kings the chiefe head I say of the Church Whereupon S. Austin doth affirme f In serm de remiss pec refertur 1. q. 1. can Vt eui denter that an excommunicated person is out of the Church and out of the body whereof Christ is the head 10. And therefore that similitude betweene the soule and body compounding one man and the spirituall and ciuill power compounding one Church or rather one Christian common wealth or Christian world is no fit similitude and it is wrongfully ascribed to S. Gregorie Nazianzene by Card. Bellarmine as I shewed before g Cap. 3. for that the soule is as the forme and the body as the matter compounding one essentiall thing which is man but the ciuill power is not as the matter nor the spirituall as the forme compounding one essentiall body which is the Church of Christ but if we will haue them to compound one totall body which is the Church taking the Church for the Christian world consisting both of the temporal and spirituall power which are in Christians whereof Christ or God and not the Pope is the head they are onely integrall to vse the termes of Philosophers and not essentiall parts neither doe they compound one essentiall but only one integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessary that one part doth depend vpon the other as hath beene now conuinced but all must of necessitie depend vpon the head although in an essentiall compound one part must of necessitie depend vpon the other for that in such a compound one part must bee as the matter and the other as the forme as I declared before 11. Wherefore the spirituall and ciuill power in the Church taking the Church for the Christian world containing in it both powers or which is all one for the company of all Christians in whome are both powers or both subiections are not like to the soule and body which are essentiall parts of man but they are as two shoulders or two sides which are only integrall parts of mans body both which powers although each of them in their kinde bee a visible head the one of temporals the other of spirituals and in that respect doe formally make two totall bodies to wit earthly kingdomes whereof temporall Princes are the head and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the chiefe visible head yet they are connected to one celestiall and inuisible head which is Christ in which respect they make one totall body whereof Christ onely and not the Pope is head which may bee called the Christian world consisting of earthly kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ 12. Neither is it true that these two powers be of so diuerse a kinde that they cannot be well compared to two shoulders for both of them are powers and in that respect of the same kinde and as powers they are compared to two shoulders And why may they not bee aptly compared to two shoulders seeing that there is nothing more strong and more neere to the head in the Christian common-wealth Neither is it materiall that one is a more strong shoulder then the other for in mans body the right arme is stronger then the left and yet one is not more an arme then the other May not I pray you two pillars of a diuerse kinde one of brasse the other of marble bee aptly compared one with the other in that both of them are pillars The temporall and the ciuill power or Kings as Kings and hauing temporall authoritie and Bishops as Bishops and hauing spirituall power are as two visible pillars which doe sustaine the edifice of the Christian world or common-wealth the one in temporalls the other in spirituals they are as two shoulders which as in mans body are next vnder the head and all the other inferiour members doe depend vpon them so also they are next vnder God the head of both and all other inferiour members of the Christian world doe depend vpon them nay being compared to the inferiour members of the Christian world they are also as two visible and ministeriall heads from whence as from the head of mans body which is the roote beginning and foundation of all sense and motion in all the inferiour parts all spirituall and temporall directions Lawes and punishments doe proceed 13. And truely if D. Barclay must bee taxed of heresie for comparing the temporall and spirituall power in the Church or Christian world for now the Church and Christian world which consisteth of both powers is taken for all one to two shoulders and for affirming that Christ only is the chiefe celestial and invisible head of both these powers and that Kings and Popes are two ministeriall heads thereof although both of them are also principall in their owne kinde and in the nature of a visible head then must Hugo de S. Victore be taxed of heresie when he compareth i Lib. 2. de Saâ—ram p. 2. ca. 3. these two powers to two sides affirming that Lay-men who haue care of earthly things are the left side of this body and Clergie men who do minister spirituall things are the right and that earthly power hath the King for the head and the spirituall hath the Pope for head Lo heere two sides and consequently two shoulders and two
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
make formally one politike bodie or temporall common wealth taking temporall and spirituall power in that improper sense as is declared by D. Schulckenius to wit for Kings and Bishops Clerks and Laikes who diuerse waies considered doe make properly and formally not onely a spirituall but also a politike bodie or temporall common-wealth yet I should and do notwithstanding denie his consequence for those two causes which Card. Bellarmine did in his Replyes alledge but as you haue seene not sufficiently confute 16 And truly if this argument of Card. Bellarmine were of force it would in my opinion convince that not only the temporall power among Christians is subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope but also that the temporall power among infidell Princes is also subiect to the Popes spirituall authoritie which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine doth denie for if the temporall gouernment of an infidell Prince doe hurt and hinder the spirituall good of Christian Religion he is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of temporall good therefore I might conclude with Card. Bellarmine that it is a signe that the temporall power of an heathen Prince is subiect to the spirituall power of Christian religion And therefore as the changing of temporall gouernment among infidells when it hindereth the spirituall good of Christian religion is no probable signe of any subiection per se of their temporall power to the Popes spirituall authoritie but onely of a bond of charitie whereby all men are by the law of God and nature bound not to hinder true spirituall good for a temporall commoditie so also among Christians it is no probable signe of any subiection or subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall but at the most of a greater bond of charitie whereby Christians not only by the law of God and nature but also by the bond of Christian religion which they professe are obliged not to hinder the spirituall good thereof for a temporall commoditie 17 Now you shall see how insufficiently also D. Schulckenius replyeth to those two answers which I made to Card. Bellarmines Replyes wherein are alledged the causes why I denyed the consequence of his argument and why a temporall Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good And first to my first answer D. Schulckenius replyeth thus l Pag. 341. that by my answer it is clearely gathered that I say nothing in this place which maketh to the ouerthrowing of Card. Bellarmines argument For I confesse saith he that a Prince of a lesse noble common-wealth is not bound to suffer any detriment onely for the order of charitie that an other common-wealth more noble doe not suffer the like vnlesse either hee bee subiect to the Prince of that noble common-wealth or vnlesse one hath both the common wealths subiect to him Therefore I am constrained saith he to confesse that the principall reason why a temporall Prince ought to suffer detriment in temporalls lest that the spirituall good be hindered is not the order of charitie but the subiection of the temporall common wealth to the spirituall when they concurre to make one Christian common-wealth or one mysticall bodie of Christ Therefore I haue not saith hee confuted Card Bellarmines argument but haue yeelded vp the bucklers yea and also haue confirmed it 18 But truly it is strange to see with what boldnesse men otherwise learned dare aduenture to auouch such grosse and palpable vntruths and when their answers are cleane ouerthrowne to brag not only of the victorie but also that their Aduersarie hath granted and confirmed their answers For obserue good Reader how vntrue and fraudulent this answer is I affirmed as you haue seene that the reason why a temporall Christian Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment if it hinder the spirituall good is not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as Card. Bellarmine pretended but because he being a Christian Prince to whom especially more then to a Heathen it doth belong to haue care of true spirituall good which Christian Religion ought chiefly to intend is by the order of charitie and not for any intrinsecall subiection or subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall bound to preferre caeteris paribus the spirituall good before the temporall And whereas Card. Bellarmine replyed that for the order of charitie one common wealth although the lesse noble is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common wealth more noble do not suffer the like detriment and one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the preseruation of his owne common wealth is not likewise bound to doe the like for an other common wealth although more noble Seeing therefore that a temporall common-wealth is bound to suffer damage for the spirituall it is a signe that they are not two diuerse common-wealths but parts of one and the selfe same common wealth and one subiect to another 12. To this Reply I answered by shewing the disparitie betwixt one temporall common-wealth compared to an other and a temporall common-wealth compared to the spirituall common wealth because the same Prince or subiect of one temporall common wealth is seldome or neuer a Prince or subiect of the other and therefore the order of charitie requireth that both the Prince and subiect ought to prefer the temporall good of their owne common wealth before the temporall good of an other more noble common wealth As also a man lesse noble ought in charitie to prefer if other things be alike his own temporall good before the temporall good of an other man more noble But if it should so fall out that the same man were Prince of both common wealths or the same priuate man were a part and member of both common wealths in this case the order of charitie would require that he who is member or hath charge of both common-wealths should preferre if other things be alike the temporall good of the more noble common wealth before the temporal good of the lesse noble not by reason of any subiection of one common wealth to the other but because both common-wealths are subiect to the same Prince or the same priuate man is subiect to both common wealths and therefore they ought with due respect and order of charitie to haue care of both and to preferre the more worthy common wealth before the lesse worthy 20. As likewise if one man hath diuerse trades one more noble an other lesse noble one more profitable and other lesse profitable if in case he should bee compelled to loose or preiudice one of his trades the order of charitie would require that hee should rather loose or preiudice the lesse noble then the more noble the lesse profitable then the more profitable trade neither from hence could it bee gathered that one trade were subiect or subordained to another but only
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
one person So likewise the ciuill and spirituall power are somtimes found diuided as long since in the Apostles time somtimes vnited as now and when they are vnited they make one body or common wealth 2. To this argument I answered in my Apologie b num 139. 140. that from the words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene onely these two things can be gathered The first that the spirituall power is more worthy and more noble then the temporall and that therefore the temporall must in worthinesse yeeld and giue place to the spirituall The second is that Christian Princes although in temporalls and in things belonging to ciuill gouernment they are supreme on earth and therefore subiect to none yet in that they are Christians they are subiect in spirituals and in things belonging to Christian Religion to the command of spirituall Pastours of the flocke of Christ For these bee the expresse wordes which he vsed to the Christian President For the law of Christ doth make you also subiect to my power and authoritie for we also haue authoritie to command I add also a more noble and more perfect vnlesse it be meete that the spirit do submit her power to the flesh and heauenly things doe giue place to earthly From which words this onely can be inferred that the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall and that all Christian Princes and Magistrates as they are the sheepe of Christ are in spirituall things subiect to the spirituall Pastours of the Church which all Catholikes will freely grant But that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the supreme visible heads here on earth do make one totall body or common wealth as the soule and body do make one man or that the temporall power among Christians as it is temporall for this much doth signifie the temporall and spirituall power taking them in abstracto or which is all one that temporall Princes are in meere temporall causes subiect to spirituall Pastours cannot with any shew of probabilitie bee gathered out of those words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene 3. Wherefore the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is nothing like to the vnion of the body and soule in man for that the body is a substantiall matter and the soule a substantiall forme and therefore being vnited they make one substantiall compound which is called man who therefore hath in him actually properly and formally both body and soule as euery compound hath in him the parts whereof it is compounded but the ciuill and spirituall power are not among Christians vnited as two parts compounding really and actually one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for that according to Card. Bellarmines owne doctrine the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is compounded only of spirituall power and not of ciuill power as ciuill is distinguished from spirituall but ciuill and spirituall power ciuill power and spirituall subiection ciuill subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and ciuill subiection are only vnited among Christians as two accidents for example Musike and Phisike are vnited in one man which vnion being only accidentall and in subiect is not sufficient to cause the temporall and spirituall power to make truely properly and formally one body whereof the Pope is bead but only to make the same man either to haue in him both temporall and spirituall power or temporall power and spirituall subiection or both temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and temporall subiection and consequently the same man to bee guided directed and gouerned in temporall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the temporall power and in spirituall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the spirituall power As the vnion of Musike and Phisike in one man although it be only materiall accidentall and in subiect yet it maketh the same man to be both a Musician and a Physitian and as he is a Musitian to be guided and directed by the lawes and precepts of Musicke and as a Phisitian by the rules precepts of phisike but it doth not make Musike to be guided and directed by Physike or a Musicion as he is a Musician to be guided and directed by a Physition as he is a Physitian So likewise the aforesaid vnion of temporall and spirituall power of temporall power and spirituall subiection c. in one man doth not make the temporall power to be subiect to the spirituall or a temporall Prince as hee is a temporall Prince or which is all one in temporall causes to bee guided directed and gouerned by the spirituall power as it is spirituall But of this similitude of the soule and body wee shall haue occasion to treat againe beneath c Cap. 8. 4. Pardon me good Reader that sometimes I repeate the same things somewhat often it is not to make my booke the bigger and to fill it vp with idle repetitions of the same things as my Aduersaries to disgrace me are pleased to lay to my charge not considering that they themselues do often times commit the like but it is onely to cleere thy vnderstanding and to make thee throughly comprehend the difficultie and in what manner the temporall and spirituall power are vnited and subordained among Christians considering that my Aduersaries to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to punish temporally by way of constraint doe so often inculcate this vnion and subordination as a principall ground whereon the Popes power in temporalls doth depend And thus you haue seene how weakely Card. Bellarmine and disagreeably to his owne principles hath laboured to proue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common wealth whereof the Pope is head now you shall see how weakely also and not conformably to his owne doctrine he endeauoureth to proue that the temporall power among Christians is subiect and subordained to the spirituall Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes touching this point are rehearsed 1. FIrst therefore that you may perceiue the true state of the question and wherein I doe agree with Card Bellarmine and wherein we differ I doe agree with him in this that Christian Princes in whom the supreme temporall power doth reside being the sheepe of Christ no lesse then inferiour persons are subiect to the supreme visible Pastour of the Church of Christ but the question is in what things and also in what manner they are subiect Secondly we also agree in this that Christian Princes are in spirituall things or which doe belong to Christian faith and Religion subiect not onely to the directiue or commanding power but also in spirituall punishments to the coerciue or punishing power of spirituall
the second opinion in this that the Pope hath power to command temporall Princes in spirituals but not in meere temporals and to punish them with spirituall punishments when they refuse to obey his iust command yet that the Pope hath any coerciue power call it spirituall or temporall for in effect it is truely temporall to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of temporals for the spirituall good or to depriue temporall Princes of their temporall dominions they vtterly denie affirming that onely Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment is the last to which the Popes coerciue power can extend And this their doctrine which Card. Bellarmine and some few others of his Society haue presumed to condeme as altogether improbable yea and wholly repugnant to Catholike faith I haue taken vpon me to maintaine as neither repugnant to Catholike faith or religion nor preiudiciall to eternall saluation and that therefore it may be defended by any Catholike without any note of heresie errour or temerity 7. These bee the different opinions of Catholikes concerning the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall wherby you see that althogh all Catholikes doe grant that temporall Princes who are somtimes called temporall powers are subiect to the spirituall Pastour in things spirituall and in temporall when they become spirituall yet all doe not grant that the temporall power it selfe euen among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall nor that the Pope as Pope hath any coerciue power to constraine and punish with temporall punishments but onely with spirituall Neither doth it follow that because Christian Princes are subiect to the Pope therefore they are subiect in all things and in all manner of subiection but onely in that sort as Christ hath giuen him power both to command punish As children are subiect to their Parents seruants to their Masters wiues to their husbands yet they are not bound to obey them but in those things wherein they haue power to command nor to be punished by them but in that sort as the temporall common-wealth whereof they are members hath expressely or couertly giuen them leaue to punish and the reason is for that they are not Superiours in an absolute and indefinite but onely in a limited and determinate manner 8. Now what opinion Card. Bellarmine doth follow whether of the Diuines or of the Canonists truly I cannot as yet well vnderstand For although he seeme to disallow the Canonists doctrine which at large he confuteth in his controuersies yet to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of temporals in order to spirituall good hee laieth such grounds concerning the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians which doe cleerely confirme the Canonists doctrine For concerning the vnion of these two powers hee affirmeth as you haue seene that the temporall and spirituall power the kingdome of Christ and the kingdomes of this world when they are Christian doe make one totall body which is the Christian common-wealth and Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head from whence it necessarily followeth that the Pope in whom all the power of the Church doth reside must haue truely properly and formally both ciuill and spirituall power which is the Canonists opinion and not onely spirituall power which is not formally but onely vertually ciuill which the Diuines and also Card. Bellarmine in places doe affirme And now concerning the subiection and subordination of these two powers he affirmeth that the temporall power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is temporall is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall or which is all one that the temporall power it selfe among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall from whence it cleerely followeth as before I shewed by the examples of Musike and Physike Christian Princes not onely in spirituals and in temporals when they become spirituals which is in order to spirituall good but also in meere temporall causes are subiect to spirituall Pastours which is the Canonists opinion and which Card. Bellarmine in other places doth disprooue 9. But how vnsoundly Card. Bellarmine and not conformably to his owne grounds laboreth to proue that the temporall power it selfe among Christians as it is temporall is subiect to the spirituall as it is spirituall you shall anone perceiue For six principall arguments I doe finde in Card. Bellarmine by which he endeauoureth to conuince that the temporal power it selfe among Christians as it is temporall is subiect and subordained to the spirituall as it is spirituall or which I take for all one that the temporall power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature supposing the institution of Christ subiect and subordained to the spirituall which arguments of Card. Bellarmine I thinke it fit to examine in this place together with the Replyes which he either in his booke against D. Barclay or in his Schulckenius against mee hath brought to confirme the same that thereby the Reader may fully vnderstand in what manner the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall and how strong or weake a proofe is the subiection or subordination of these two powers which is by Mr. Fitzherbert supposed to be so inuinsible a ground to conclude from thence that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to dispose of all temporalls to depose temporall Princes and to punish by way of coercion with all kinde of temporall punishments Chap. 5. Wherein is examined Card. Bellarmines first argument taken from the ends of the temporall and spirituall power 1. THe first argument which Card. Bellarmine affirmeth a Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. c. 7. to demonstrate that the temporall power among Christians not only as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill or temporall is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is taken from the ends of both the powers For a temporall end saith he is subordained to a spirituall end as it is manifest because temporall felicitie is not absolutely the last end and therefore it ought to bee referred to eternall felicitie but it is apparant out of Aristotle 1 Ethic. cap. 1. that faculties or powers are so subordained as their ends are subordained 2. To this argument I answered in my Apologie b Num. 162. seq that not euery temporall end is per se and of it owne nature ordained or subordained to a spirituall end speaking of create ends and not of God almighty who is the beginning and end of all things but it is only by accident or accidentally by man who worketh for an end ordained to a spirituall end And therefore although temporall good or felicity be not absolutely the last end of man yet it is the last end of the temporall power it selfe which is in man For euery power as it is a power hath for her last end her act
or worke as euery science hath of it owne nature for her last end the knowledge of her obiect and euery art the effecting of her work as the last end of naturall philosophie is to know the secrets of nature and of Phisike to cure and preserue the body from diseases although man himselfe in whom that power art or science doth reside doth intend a farther end Whereupon S. Austin doth well affirme that the will to see hath no other end then seeing The will saith he c Lib. 11. de Trin. cap. 6. to see hath seeing for her end and the will to see this thing hath for her end the seeing of this thing The will therefore to see a skarre doth desire her end that is the seeing of a skarre and no further doth appertaine to her Wherefore as the Philosophers do distinguish betwixt the last end of any art or worke and the last end of the artificer or worker so we also ought to distinguish betwixt the last end of the power it selfe and of him in whom the power doth reside It is called the last end of the worke for that the worke is in that lastly ended and not the last end of the worker for that the worker doth not referre all that is his to that end as a thing to be desired and loued aboue all things 3. I grant therefore that the end of a Christian Prince who hath temporall power is spirituall and eternall felicitie to which Christians ought to refer all their actions and the vse not only of the Ecclesiasticall but also of the ciuill power but withall I affirme that the last end which the ciuill power hath per se and of it owne nature is only temporall peace and quietnesse in the getting and conseruing wherof of it owne nature it doth lastly rest And therefore for this reason it is not necessary that the ciuill power it selfe be per se and of it owne nature subordained to the Ecclesiasticall but onely accidentally and by the intention of him who referreth temporall peace to eternall felicitie in that maner as I haue declared To that assertion of Aristotle powers are so subordained as their ends are subordained although in that place hee rather saith that â—â—ds are subordained as powers are subordained I answered that it is to be vnderstood of those ends which powers haue of their owne nature and not of the ends of the men in whom the powers doe reside Thus I answered in my Apologie 4. Now you shall see how insufficiently Card. Bellarmine in his Schulckenius replyeth to this answere I answere saith he d Pag. 329. ad num 162. that not euery temporall or corporall end is subordained per se and of it owne nature to a spirituall end my Aduersary Widdrington doth say but hee doth not proue But first who knoweth not that it doth not appertaine to the Answerer to proue for to this the opponent only is tyed and for the Answearer it sufficeth by granting denying or distinguishing for him to answere 5. Secondly I did not conceiue that this assertion being so cleere and manifest of it selfe needed any proofe at all and therefore I little thought that any learned man would euer deny the same for that according to the knowne principles of Philosophy and Diuinitie no naturall thing can intrinsically and of it own nature be referred to a thing which is supernaturall and aboue the course of nature and therefore betwixt naturall and supernaturall things there can be no naturall subordination Now that temporall peace in a temporall common-wealth is a naturall thing and eternall felicitie which consisteth in the cleere vision and fruition of almighty God is supernaturall and goeth beyond the bounds limits and order of nature no man can make any doubt and therefore temporall peace cannot of it owne nature be referred to eternall felicity but onely by the will and intention of man who by the helpe of supernaturall light and grace doth referre it direct it and eleuate it to that supernaturall end 6. And for this cause also it is very cleere that temporall power cannot of it owne nature bee referred to true spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power for that it is supernatural and giuen onely by God as he is the Author not of nature but of supernaturall grace Yea out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds it may be cleerely conuinced that the temporall power among Christians is not of it own nature subiect and subordained to the spirituall power and consequently that temporall peace which is the end of temporall power is not of it own nature referred or ordained to eternal felicity which is the last create end of the spiritual power for that according to Aristotle e Lib. 1. Ethic. cap. 1. ends are so subordained as their powers are subordained His first ground is for that in his Controuersies he affirmeth f Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 6. that in Infidels there is true ciuill power without any order or relation to any true spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power and consequently in Infidels the ciuill power is not subiect or subordained to the spirituall for where there is no order or relation there can be no subiection or subordination for that subiection and subordidation doth necessarily imply an order relation or reference to that to which any thing is subordained 7. Seeing therefore that Christian Religion doth not take away true ciuill power as Card. Bellarmine himselfe also in another place affirmeth g Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. neither is the true nature or any intrinsecall propertie of the ciuil power changed or altered for that it is in a Christian or an Infidell in this subiect or in that it necessarily followeth that if true ciuill power bee not of it own nature subiect or subordained in Infidels to true spirituall or Ecclesiastical power it is not also in Christians per se and of it own nature subiect or subordained to true spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power This onely alteration hath ciuill power for being in this subiect or in that in Infidels or in Christians that Christians ought according to the true grounds of Christian Religion referre it by the aide of true supernaturall faith to a true supernaturall end to which Infidels who want true supernaturall faith cannot referre it but this alteration is extrinsecall or accidentall not intrinsecall or essentiall neither doth it proceed from the nature of the ciuill power it selfe but from the wil intention of him in whom true ciuill power doth reside As likewise the nature or intrinsecall properties of other accidents as of Musick Physick and such like are not altered or changed by the changing or altering of their subiects for that they are in Christians or in Infidels although a Christian Musician will refer ordaine his Musick to the true worship of God an Infidel to the honor of his Idol 8. The second ground which Card. Bellarmine layeth to prooue that the temporall power
among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power is for that in his Schulckenius he affirmeth h Pag. 276. ad nu 140. That among the Heathen Romanes the ciuill power was subiect to the spiritual power of a false religion and a little beneath if the ciuill power saith he be ioyned with a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion as it was in the Heathen Romane Common-wealth then it is actually subordained to a false Ecclesiasticall power and if it bee ioyned with a true Ecclesiasticall power as in the Christian and Catholike Church then it is actually subordained to a true Ecclesiasticall power Now what Philosopher or Diuine will affirme that a true ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature actually ordained subordained or referred to a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion or to the worshipping of false Gods Therfore this subiection subordination or relation of true ciuill power to the spirituall proceedeth from the intention of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside who according to his faith and religion bee it true or false referreth his true ciuill power to a true or false Religion to a true or false worshipping of God and not from the nature or any intrinsecal propertie of the true ciuill power it selfe which as it is the same in Infidels and Christians or in whatsoeuer subiect it be so also of it own nature hath the same end as well in Infidels as in Christians to wit temporall peace to which of it owne nature it is alwaies referred And therefore I doe not onely say but also I doe cleerely prooue and that out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to which neuerthelesse I being only an answerer and not an opponent was not tied that neither the ciuil power being only a naturall power nor the end of ciuill power which is temporal peace being onely a naturall end is per se and of it owne nature subiect or subordained to a true supernaturall power or end but onely by the intension of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside 9. Now you shal see how wel D. Schulckenius proueth the contrarie But wee prooue the contrary saith he i Pag. 329. ad nu 162. because the end of the spirituall common-wealth is euerlasting saluation which is the last end the end of the temporall common-wealth is the peace of the Citie or Kingdome which is not the last end but a mediate end But all ends are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the last end and in vertue of it they doe mooue as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the first efficient cause and in vertue of it they worke whatsoeuer they doe worke See S. Thomas 1â— 2â— q. 1. ar 6. 10. But to this argument I answered before that the last create end of the spirituall common-wealth which is a companie of men vnited by Baptisme in that manner as I declared before is eternal saluation to which they ought to referre all their powers both temporall and spirituall and all their actions both in generall and particular but I denied that the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it bee conioyned in one the selfe same subiect with true spirituall power is eternall saluation but onely temporall peace in the common-wealth to which of it owne nature it is onely referred as to her last end although by the intention of him in whom true ciuill and spirituall power doth reside it ought to bee referred to eternall saluation as to the last end of a Christian man but not as to the last end which the temporall power it selfe hath per se and of it owne nature Neither hath D. Schulckenius proued the contrary but rather in his Reply to my answere hee in expresse words confirmeth what I haue said For in his answere to the authority which I brought out of S. Augustine hee affirmeth That the last end of one particular will power or science is their act or operation and therefore it cannot of it owne nature be referred to eternall saluation as to the last end vnlesse D. Schulckenius will admit that the same particular power hath of it owne nature two last ends or a later end then the last which implieth a manifest contradiction but it must onely be referred extrinsecally to eternall saluation by the intention of him in whom the particular power doth reside 11 True it is That all create ends are subordained per se and of their nature to that end which is simply and absolutely the last end and doe moue in vertue thereof as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to that which is simply and absolutely the first efficient cause and in vertue thereof they doe worke whatsoeuer they do worke But this efficient and finall cause of all created things is not the eternall saluation of men but God a mighty who is Alpha Omega principium finis the beginning and end of all created things both naturall and supernaturall both vnreasonable and reasonable of accidents and substances of all powers and of all things wherein powers doe reside and who is glorified not onely by the eternall saluation but also by the eternall damnation of men God alone is simply and absolutely the last end of all created things to whome all naturall things are of their owne nature lastly referred as to the first Authour and last end of nature and supernaturall things as to the first Authour and last end of grace and glory Neither can naturall things of their owne nature be referred to any supernaturall create end as is eternall saluation but onely by the will and intention of him who by the helpe of supernatural grace shall referre and eleuate them aboue their nature to a supernaturall end Neither doth S. Thomas in that place affirme the contrary but rather most cleerely confirmeth what I haue said for there he only disputeth how euery man by his wil intention and desire referreth all good things which hee desireth to the last end 12. Marke now I beseech you D. Schulckenius his second proofe which is no whit better then the former Moreouer is not the body saith he k Pag. 330. per se or of it owne nature for the soule why then are not corporall things per se or of their owne nature for spirituall things And whereas my Aduersarie Widdrington seemeth to say that euery temporall end is per accidens or accidentally referred to a spiritual end as by man who worketh for an end it is ordained to a spirituall end it is altogether false For oftentimes wicked men doe ordaine spirituall things to temporall of whom the Apostle saith whose God is their belly and by this a temporall end is per se and of it owne nature alwaies ordained to a spirituall end but by accident and against nature by the
himselfe Prouerb 16. and who is glorified not only in the eternall saluation but also in the eternall damnation both of Men and Angells And this D. Schulckenius can not deny and he might haue seene the same confirmed by S. Thomas in the same question cited by him ar 8. but more expressely 1ª part q. 44. ar 4. where he proueth that because God almightie is the first efficient cause of all things he must of necessitie be also the last end of all things and by S. Austin also in infinite places 18. Secondly whereas D. Schulckenius affirmeth that the last end of one particular will power or science is their act and withall that this last end is per se and of it owne nature referred to a further create end whereof only he speaketh and consequently that particular will or power must also be referred to that farther end and so it must be referred to a farther end then to the last he cleerely contradicteth himselfe For how can any act be per se and of it owne nature be the last end of one particular will power or science and yet this last end bee per se and of it owne nature referred to a farther end seeing that according to the approoued grounds of philosophie which kinde of arguing the Logicians call Sorites or à primo ad vltimum an argument from the first to the last euery particular will power or science which is per se and of it owne nature referred to any particular end is also referred to all those ends to which that particular end is per se and of it owne nature referred As for example if any particular will be per se and of it owne nature referred to the seeing of a skar and the seeing of a skarre bee per se and of it owne nature referred to the finding out of the wound and the finding out of the wound be per se and of it owne nature referred to the correcting of him who did inflict the wound c. then à primo ad vltimum from the first to the last the will to see a skarre must per se and and of it owne nature bee referred to the correcting of him who did inflict the wound c. Wherefore if the seeing of a skarre bee the last end of the will to see a skarre as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth it cannot per se and of it owne nature bee referred to a farther end vnlesse hee will grant that the same will shall haue per se a farther end then the last which is a flat contradiction but if it be referred to a farther end it is onely by accident and extrinsecally by the intention of the seer who referreth the seeing of a skarre to a farther end then it hath of it owne nature Neither doth S. Thomas or S. Austin affirme the contrary but confirme what I haue sayd 19. For although S. Austin doth affirme that all these such like wils haue their proper ends which are referred to the end of that will wherby we desire to liue happily and to come to that life which is not referred to any other thing but it doth of it selfe satisfie the Louer yet he doth not say that these proper ends are per se and of their owne nature referred to euerlasting happinesse but he doth rather in expresse words say that they are by some particular will or intention of man referred to euerlasting happinesse And therefore he concludeth that all wils are well connected together if that will be good whereunto all the rest be referred but if that bee bad all the other wils are bad So that S. Austin cannot be so vnderstood that all those wils are per se and of their owne nature referred to a good or to a bad will for that a will which of it owne nature is good can not of it owne nature be referred to a bad will or to a bad end And therefore when S. Austin saith that the will to see a skarre hath for her proper end the seeing of a skarre and no farther appertaineth to her hee vnderstandeth of the last end which the will to see a skar hath per se and of it owne nature and when he saith that it may be referred to a farther end good or bad he vnderstandeth of a farther end not which it hath of it owne nature but which it hath by some other will or intention which may be good or bad according as it referreth all the other wils to a good or bad end 20. Moreouer those examples which D. Schulckenius bringeth in the end of his Reply doe most cleerly confirme my answer and confute his owne Reply For if a man haue many wils one to see a skarre another by seeing the skar to prooue the wound the third by prouing the wound to correct him who inflicted the wound and so foorth it is certaine that the seeing of the skarre is not per se and of it owne nature referred and ordained to prooue the wound and to correct him who did inflict the wound but onely by the will and intention of the seer who referreth it to those ends in whose choice it is to refer the seeing of a skar to other ends neither is their any naturall or necessary connexion betwixt the seeing of the skar the proouing of the wound and the correcting of him who did inflict it for that a skar may be seene for many other ends and not at all for those Besides it is repugnant to the course of nature that the seeing of a skar which is a naturall thing should be per se and of it own nature referred ordained to the euerlasting happinesse of man which is a thing aboue nature and beyond the course of naturall things and therefore it is only by accident and extrinsecally by the intention and will of man referred and ordained to that supernaturall end And thus you see that I haue not only clearely answered to this first argument of Card. Bellarmine which had been sufficient for me who tooke vpon mee only to answere and not to proue but also haue clearely prooued that although eternall felicitie be the last create end of man yet temporall peace and not eternall felicitie is the last create end to which temporall power euen among Christians is per se and of it owne nature referred 21. Neuerthelesse I will go a little farther with Card. Bellarmine and grant him for Disputation sake which hitherto he hath not in my iudgement so much as probably proued that thereby the weakenesse also of this his first pretended demonstration may the more easily appeare to wit that not only the Ecclesiasticall but also the ciuill power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature and not only by the will and intention of Christian men referred to the true eternall saluation of man as to the last end not only of man but of the ciuill power it selfe yet it can not therefore from hence
by any necessarie consequence bee inferred that the ciuill power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect and subordained to the spirituall power or that the end of the ciuill power is subordained to the end of the spirituall power but at the most that both of them haue one the selfe same last end to wit the eternall felicitie of man to which the spirituall power leadeth Christian men by spirituall meanes to wit by spirituall directions lawes and punishments and the ciuill power by ciuill meanes directions lawes and punishments And therefore there is no subordination of ends betwixt the ends of the spirituall and temporall power and consequently no subordination of powers but they haue both one last end to wit euerlasting happinesse although diuerse waies or meanes to attaine thereunto not much vnlike diuerse lines in a circle which doe end all in one center and yet one line is not subordained to another although all of them â—e tend by diuerse waies to the same center And therefore by this first argument Card. Bellarmine hath not sufficiently proued that the ciuill power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subordained to the spirituall or the proper end of the ciuil power which is her act tending to teÌ„porall peace subordained to the proper end of the spirituall power which is also her act tending lastly to euerlasting happinesse although I should grant him that both of them haue per se and of their owne nature one and the selfe same last end which is the eternall saluation of man in whom those powers doe reside And therefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing belike the sufficiencie of my answere and the weaknesse of his owne Reply flieth to a second Reply which neuerthelesse is as insufficient as the former 22. But although we should grant saith he p Pag. 333. to Widdrington that the end of the ciuill power is not referred per se and of it owne nature to the end of the spirituall but onely by the intention of the Prince in whom the ciuill power doth reside yet the argument which Card. Bellarmine brought from the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall to proue that the spirituall Prince could not onely command temporall Princes but also dispose of temporalls in order to spirituall good would be most strong and good For a Christian temporall Prince ought to referre the publike peace which is the end of ciuill power to the eternall peace and felicitie of himselfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And therefore hee ought to subiect and subordaine the end of his power to the end of the power of the spirituall Prince But as he ought to subiect and subordaine end to end so also power to power Wherefore hee ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power and that so the sword be vnder the sword and in the Christian common wealth there be order peace and quietnesse whiles Superiours do rule inferiours and inferiours be subiect to Superiours 23. But in this Reply there lie hidden some cunning equiuocations and the most that it proueth as oftentimes heretofore I haue signified is that the temporall power or sword or rather temporall Princes who haue temporall power and beare the temporall sword are in spirituall causes whether of their owne nature or by some accidentall circumstance they become spirituall to the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power by which they are to be directed corrected not in meere temporals but only in spirituals not by temporall lawes or with temporall punishments which doe belong onely to the temporall power but only by Ecclesiasticall lawes or directions and with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments or corrections which onely do appertaine to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power 24. True it is that eternall saluation is the last create end not only of the spirituall but also of the temporall power among Christians seeing that all Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre their temporall power and the vse thereof not onely to temporall peace in the common weath which is the last end which temporall power hath per se and of it owne nature but also to the eternall peace and felicity of themselues and of their people And therefore there is here no subordination of ends betwixt the temporall power and the spirituall and consequently in this respect no subordination of powers as D. Schulckenius doth here from thence inferre but aswell the ciuill power among Christians as the spirituall haue one and the selfe same last end whether it bee intrinsecall to one power and extrinsecall to the other or intrinsecall to both as I declared before to which the temporall power by temporall lawes directions and corrections and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes directions and corrections or punishments are by the law of Christ bound to direct and lead all Christians 25. Whereupon S. Thomas or whosoeuer bee the Authour of that booke de Regimine Principum doth well affirme q Lib. 1 c. 14. that the end which a King ought principally to intend in himselfe and in his subiects is eternall happinesse which doth consist in the seeing of God and because this seeing of God is the most perfect good of all it ought to moue exceedingly a King and euery Lord that their subiects may attaine to this end Therefore when Kings saith S. Austin r Tom. 2. epist 50. in the time of the Apostles did not serue our Lord then impieties could not be forbidden by lawes but rather exercised But afterwards when that began to be fulfilled which is written Å¿ Psal 71. And all the Kinges of the earth shall adore him all nations shall serue him What sober minded man can say to Kings Doe not you regard by whom the Church of your Lord is defended or impugned in your kingdome that it doth not appertaine to you who will be religious or sacrilegious in your kingdome to whom it can not be said that it doth not appertaine to you who will bee chast or wanton in your kingdome 27. Wherefore if a Christian Prince should by his lawes or otherwise withdraw his subiects from the attaining to eternall saluation should impugne not defend the Church command not forbid impieties hee should greatly offend God and the Church and ought not to take it in ill part that hee should be therefore corrected by the chiefe Pastour of the Church to whom he is subiect in spiritualls with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the spirituall power But if the Pastour of the Church should take vpon him to correct such a Prince by way of coercion and constraint with temporall punishments which kinde of correction doth passe the limits of his spirituall power then the Prince may iustly take it in ill part for this were to vsurpe
temporall Iurisdiction which is proper only to a temporall Prince and not to obserue due order but to make a confusion betwixt sword and sword betwixt the spirituall and temporall power which temporall power is only in spirituall corrections and not in temporall punishments subiect to the constraint of the temporall power 28 And therefore well said our most learned Countryman Alexander of Hales t 3. part q. 40. memb 5. q. 4. cited by me before that the subiection of Kings and Emperours to the Pope is in spirituall not corporall punishment according as it is said 2a. q. 7. that it belongeth to Kings to exercise corporall punishment and to Priests to vse spirituall correction Wherevpon S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperour Arcadius and did forbid him to enter into the Church For as an earthly Iudge not without cause beareth the sword as it is said Rom 13. so Priests doe not without cause receiue the keyes of the Church he beareth the sword to the punishment of malefactors and commendation of the good these haue keyes to the excluding of excommunicated persons and reconciling of them who are penitent Expound therefore A King is to be punished only by God that is with materiall punishment and againe A King hath no man to iudge his doings that is to inflict corporall punishment and a little beneath A King saith Alexander doth excell 1. Pet 2. true it is in his order to wit to inflict corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but only God what can be spoken more plainly 29 And by this you easily see the weaknes of D. Schulckenius his argument and how cunningly with generall and ambiguous words he would delude his Reader A temporall Prince saith he ought to refer publike peace to the eternall peace and folâ—estie of him selfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And what then And as hee ought to subiect temporall peace to eternall peace so he ought to subiect his temporall power to the spirituall power But how in what manner in what causes in what punishments temporall power ought to bee subiect to spirituall power D. Schulc cunningly concealeth Temporall power to be subiect to spirituall if wee will speake properly and in abstracto doth signifie that a temporall Prince is in all temporall affaires subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastors And if by those generall words D. Schulckenius meaneth this he falleth into the Canonists opinion whose doctrine in this point learned Victoria u in Relect. 1. de potest Eccles num 2. 3. is not afraid to condemn as manifestly false and who being poore themselues in learning and riches to flatter the Pope gaue him this direct power and dominion in temporalls For the truth is that temporall Princes in temporall affaires are not subiect to any besides God alone which is the receiued doctrine of the ancient Fathers The sense therefore of that proposition must be that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in temporalls subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope But what then wherefore he ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power c. Still you see he speaketh ambiguously and in generall words the sense whereof if hee had declared you would presently haue perceiued the weaknesse of his argument for if he meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed in spiritualls and in things belonging to Christian Religion and corrected with spirituall punishments by the Pope this I easily grant him and so he proueth nothing against me but if hee meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed by the Pope in temporalls and corrected by him with temporall punishments this consequence I vtterly denie for this were to confound all good order and to vsurpe temporall Iurisdiction as I declared before And thus much concerning Card Bellarmines first argument my answer and D. Schulckenius his Reply to the same Chap. 6. Wherein is examined the second argugument taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church 1. THe second argument which Card Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit one Church Rom 12. 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected and one dependeth on the other but it can not rightly be said that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spirituall and are subiect to them 2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered before b Cap. 2. that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes being diuerse waies considered doe make two totall and not onely one totall body or common-wealth For as they are referred to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pastour to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals they make one totall body or common-wealth to wit the Catholike Church which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals as all members are subiect to the head they make another body or common-wealth to wit earthly kingdomes as before I declared more at large And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false 3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof and to shew most plainely that not onely his Maior proposition as I haue prooued before but also his Minor is apparantly false I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected either immediately or mediately to the head vpon whom they all depend yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other there is no man so ignorant that will affirme for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other nor one arme vpon the other nor one shoulder vpon the other but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues or to other members to which they adhere May it not I pray you by the same manner of arguing and by the very same argument be concluded thus The armes or euery man are members of one body but in euery bodie the members are connected and depending one vpon the other but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right and is subiect vnto it Who would not skorn such foolish arguments 4. To this answer Card. Bellarmine c In Tract contra Bâ—rcl
also as it is ciuill is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Thirdly saith he a Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap 7. if the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince according to the opinion of all men is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall 2 Neither doth he satisfie that should answer that a Prince is bound to change that manner of his gouernment not for the subordination to the spirituall power but onely for order of charitie by which wee are bound to preferre greater goods before losser For in regard of the order of charitie one common-wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common-wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment And one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth is not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble Seeing therefore that the temporall common-wealth is bound to suffer detriment for the spiritual common-weatlh it is a signe that they are not two diuerse common-wealths but parts of one and the same common-wealth and one subiect to the other 3. Neither also is it of force if one should say that a temporall Prince is bound to suffer detriment for the spirituall good not in regard of any subiection of the temporall commonwealth to the spirituall common wealth but because otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose spiritualls for temporalls For although those men who are not his subiects but are of an other kingdome should suffer any notable hurt in spiritualls for the gouernment in temporalls of some Christian King he is bound to change his manner of gouernment whereof no other reason can be giuen but that they are members of the same body and one subiect to the other 4. By this argument Card. Bellarmine as you see laboureth to proue two things the one is that not only Lay-men and Cleargie-men doe make one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for of this no Catholike maketh any doubt but also that the temporall spirituall power themselues or which is all one the temporall and spirituall common wealth as they consist of temporall and spirituall power are parts or this totall body called the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head The second is that not only temporall Princes are in spirituals subiect to the supreme spirituall Pastour but also that the temporall power itselfe as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and consequently that temporall Princes not onely in spiritualls but also in all temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power But neither of these can bee rightly concluded from this argument as I shewed in my Apologie b Num. 160. seq where I denied the consequence of this third argument speaking of subiection and subordination per se and of it owne nature For if temporall gouernment doe hinder spirituall good the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with detriment of temporall good not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as though of the temporall and spirituall power were made formally one politike body but for both the reasons alledged by Card. Bellarmine which he did not sufficiently confute in his Replyes 5. The first reason is for the order of charitie by which we are bound to prefer greater goods before lesser To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrarie I answered thus that although for the order of charity one common wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment yet in case that both common wealths bee subiect to one Prince or that the Prince of the lesse noble coÌ„mon wealth be also a subiect of the more noble then that Prince is bound for order of charitie all other things being alike to preferre the more noble common-wealth before the lesse noble And although one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth bee not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble yet in case that the same priuate man should at the same time bee a Citizen of both common-wealths if he be bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the lesse noble common wealth whereof he is a Citizen he is much more bound for the same order of charitie to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the more noble common wealth to which also he is subiect And this is the very case in this present question For the spirituall and ciuill power and the common wealths which they compound are so vnited and connected among Christians that euery Christian is a Citizen of both common wealths and both common wealths may be subiect to the same Prince as appeareth in the Pope who is the spirituall Prince or Pastour of the whole Christian world and also a temporall Prince of some Prouinces thereof 6. The second reason for which a temporall Prince is bound to change the manner of his gouernment in the aforesaid case is for that otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose greater goods for the lesser that is spirituall goods for temporall To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrary I answered that the reason wherefore a temporall Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment if it be greatly hurtfull to the spirituall good not only of his owne subiects but also of the subiects of another Kingdome is not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall or for that both of them are parts of one and the same totall common wealth but because both the King and also those subiects of an other temporall kingdome are also members of the same mysticall body of Christ and Cittizens of the same spirituall Kingdome and therefore that King least that he should greatly preiudice in spiritualls the kingdome of Christ whereof he is a Citizen by his temporall gouernment is bound to change that manner of gouernment Thus I answered in my Apologie 7. Now you shall see how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift of this answere To the first part of my answere he replyeth thus c Pag. 339. Hâ—ere I see nothing that needeth any answere sauing that as though of the temporall and spirituall power were formally made one politike body For my Aduersary Widdrington doth grant the antecedent of Card. Bellarmines argument and denieth the consequence and for this cause he doth deny it for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made
formally one politike body and therefore one power is not per se subiect to the other But what man that is well in his wits did euer say that of the temporall and spirituall power is made formally one politike body For although Cleargie men are Cittizens of the ciuill common wealth as they liue together with the Citizens of that common wealth and do buy sell and doe other things according to the lawes of that common-wealth yet because they are exempted from the power of the politike Prince and doe obserue his lawes not by force of the law but by force of reason they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called parts of the ciuill common-wealth 8. Adde also that if the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power should make one politike body the Ecclesiasticall should either be superiour or subiect to the ciuill superiour it could not be for that the King is head of the politike body neither could it be subiect for that a superiour power ought not to be subiect to an inferiour And besides as it hath beene sayd Cleargie men are exempted from the power of a politike Prince and therefore the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe not make properly and formally one politike body But my Aduersarie doth faine absurd opinions which hee may refell That which Card. Bellarmine saith is that the spirituall and temporall power that is Bishops Kings and their subiects Clerkes and Laikes doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ wherein all things are well ordered and disposed and therefore superiour things doe rule inferiour things and inferiour things are subiect to superiour things Let my Aduersarie Widdrington ouerthrow this and then let him deny the consequence of Card. Bellarmines argument Thus D. Schulckenius 9. But how vnsound cunning and insufficient is this Reply of D. Schulckenius and also repugnant to his owne grounds you shall presently perceiue And first when I denied that the spirituall and temporall power doe make formally one politike body by a politike body I did not vnderstand as it distinguished and contra-diuided to a spirituall body but as it is distinguished from a naturall body and comprehendeth in generall all politike gouernments whether they be temporall spirituall or mixt in which sense not onely earthly kingdomes compounded of temporall power but also the spirituall kingdome mysticall body or Church of Christ consisting onely of spirituall power is a politike body Wherefore by the name of a politike body I vnderstood a common-wealth in generall whether it were temporall spirituall or mixt of both as any man who is not desirous to cauill may easily perceiue by all those answers and assertions which I did so often inculcate concerning the vnion and coniunction of these two powers So that my meaning in that place onely was to deny that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to the visible heads and subiects of both powers doe make formally one totall common-wealth but onely materially for that the same Christian men who haue temporall power or temporall subiection doe make one spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power or temporall subiection for so they make onely temporall and earthly kingdomes but formally as they haue temporall and spirituall power temporall and spirituall subiection and are referred to the visible heads thereof they make two totall bodies or common-wealths as before I haue declared more at large 10. Secondly although it be true that temporall and spirituall power that is Kings and Bishops Clerks and Laikes as D. Schulckenius expoundeth those words which neuerthelesse is a very improper acception of those words for that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doth signifie Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they haue temporall and spirituall power doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ yet this was not all that which Card. Bellarmine affirmed for Card. Bellarmine affirmed another thing which I pretended to impugne and which D. Schulckenius cunningly concealeth to wit that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one This was that which I impugned not two common-wealths but one I neuer denied that they did make one common-wealth to wit the Church of Christ but withall I affirmed that they did make also two to wit the earthly kingdomes also of this Christian world So that I did not inuent or faine absurd opinions to confute them as D. Schulckenius vntruely affirmeth but I haue cleerely shewed and that out of Card. Bellarmines or D. Schulckenius his owne grounds as before you haue seene more at large d Cap. 1. 2. 3. that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally two totall bodies or common-wealths and that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes diuerse wayes considered are parts and members of them both 11. Thirdly although I had taken a politike bodie for a temporall common-wealth as in very truth I did not but onely for a common-wealth in generall as a politike bodie is distinguished from a naturall bodie yet I might be very well in my wits and neuerthelesse haue affirmed that the temporall and spirituall power doe in the like manner and for the same cause make formally one temporal common-wealth for the which D. Schulckenius doth heere affirme that temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one spirituall bodie or common-wealth For the reason why he affirmeth that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one Ecclesiasticall or spirituall common-wealth is for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ and subiect to the spirituall power of the supreme spirituall Pastor which reason if it be of force doth also conclude that the temporall and spirituall power may in like manner â—e sayd to make formally one temporal common-wealth for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are also true members and parts of the temporall common-wealth and therfore they are either temporall Princes themselues or subiect in temporals to the temporal power of temporal Princes And therfore the reason why D. Schulckenius doth here affirm That the temporall and spiritual power do not make formally one politicke or temporal body is as you haue seen for that the Clergie are exempted from the power of a politicke Prince and do obserue his Lawes not by force of the Law but by force of reason and therefore saith he they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called a part of the politicke common-wealth From whence it cleerly followeth that if a man may be well in his wits and yet affirme that Cleargie men are true parts members and subiects of the temporall common wealth and consequently are not exempted from temporall subiection but doe owe true fidelitie and allegiance to temporall Princes hee may also bee well in his wits and yet affirme according to D. Shulckenius his reason that of the temporall
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
which hee appealed to Caesar was spirituall d In tract contra Barcl cap. 3 pag. 51. which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in another place e Lib 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. that S. Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar and did acknowledge him for his Iudge when he was accused of raysing sedition and tumults in the people And moreouer to omit sundry other his contradictions that the Church of Christ is compounded f See aboue cap. 2. of spirituall and temporall power as a man is compounded of soule and body and that the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth doe make one totall body whereof the Pope is head as a man is compounded of bâ—dy and soule which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in other places that the Church of Christ is compounded onely of spirituall power and that the Pope if wee will speake properly hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 18 But secondly although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour therefore sonnes are free c. were meant of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar and not to the temple yet Card. Bellarmine himselfe did in the former Editions of his Controuersies giue therevnto a very sufficient answer and which in his latter Editions he hath not confuted For thus he writeth g lib. 1. de Clericis Cap. 28. I answer first that this place doth not conuince for otherwise he should exempt from tributes all Christians who are regenerate by Baptisme Secondly I answer that our Sauiour doth speake onely of himselfe For he maketh this Argument The sonnes of Kinges are free from tributes because they neither pay tribute to their fathers for that the goods of the parents and children are common nor to other Kings because they are not subiect to them but I am the sonne of the first and chiefest King therefore I owe tribute to no man Wherfore when our Sauiour saith therefore Sonnes are free from thence hee meant onely to gather this that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men hee affirmed nothing 19 Thus answered Card. Bellarmine in times past when he followed the opinion of the Diuines concerning the exemption of Clergy men against the Canonists who vrged this place of holy Scriptue to proue that Clergy men are exempted from paying of tributes by the law of God But now forsooth he forsaketh the Diuines and this very text therefore sonnes are free which then hee brought for an obiection against his opinion and cleerely answered the same he bringeth now for a chiefe ground to proue his new opinion and which is very remarkable hee concealeth the answer which he then made to the said obiection onely hee addeth this that when the sonnes of Kings are exempted from tribute not onely their owne persons but also their seruants and Ministers and so their families are exempted from tributes But it is certaine that all Clergie men do properly appertaine to the family of Christ who is the sonne of the King of Kings And this our Lord did seeme to signifie when hee said to S. Peter But that wee may not scandalize them finding the stater take it and giue it for me and thee As though he should say that both hee and his family whereof S. Peter was a chiefe gouernour ought to bee free from tributes Which also S. Hierome doth seeme to haue vnderstood in his Commentary of that place when hee saith that Clergy men doe not pay tributes for the honour of our Lord and are as Kings children free from tributes and S. Austin lib. 1. qq Euang. q. 23. where he writeth that in euery earthly Kingdome the children of that Kingdome vnder which are all the Kingdomes of the earth ought to be free not are free as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth S. Austin to say from tributes 20 Thus you see how Card. Bellarmine runneth vp and downe from the words of holy Scripture by which it is demonstrated saith he that S. Peter was not bound to pay tribute to Caesar to the sense which he himselfe disproueth and then from the sense to his priuate collections and inferences that if S. Peter was free all the Apostles were free and if all the Apostles all Cleargie men But if it had pleased him to haue also set downe the answere which in the former Editions of his bookes he made to this obiection the Reader would easily haue perceiued that from this place of holy Scripture no sufficient reason could be gathered to cause him to recall his former opinion although wee should grant that those words of our Sauiour were meant of the tribute which was to be paide to Caesar of which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine will not haue them to be vnderstood but onely of the tribute which the children of Israell were by the law of God Exod. 30. commanded to pay for their soules vnto the vse of the tabernacle of testimonie for at that time the temple was not built For first saith he if this argument did conuince not onely Cleargie men but also all Christians who being regenerate by baptisme are the children of Christ and also doe properly appertaine to his spirituall familie or Church of which S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles vnder him were chiefe gouernours should be exempted from paying tributes Secondly our Sauiour saith he doth speake onely of himselfe who was the sonne of the first and chiefest King and that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute of other men he affirmeth nothing 21 Thirdly to the authority of S. Hierome he answereth that S. Hierome did not intend in that place to proue out of the Gospell that Cleargie men are free from tribute but onely he doth bring a certaine congruence wherefore they are freed by the decrees of Priâ—ces for therefore he saith that they doe not pay tributes as the children of the Kingdome and he addeth an other cause to wit the honor of Christ for he saith that for his honour Cleargie men doe not pay tributs Therfore not the law of God but the decrees of Princes made for the honour of Christ haue exempted Cleargy men Thus Card. Bellarmine 22 Fourthly to the authority of S. Augustine he answereth that although Iansenius whom Salmeron and Suarez doe follow doth affirme that S. Austen by the children of the supreme kingdome did vnderstand the naturall children of God and that he spake in the plurall number to obserue the manner of our Sauiours spech so that the meaning of S. Austen was that all the naturall sonnes of God if it were possible that God could haue more naturall sonnes then one should be exempted from paying of earthly tributes yet Card. Bellarmine doth not like well of this answere and therefore he thinketh the answere of Abulensis to be the more probable that S. Austen did not vnderstand naturall children but Clergie men and Monkes who as also S. Hierome affirmeth in Cap. 17 Mat. were and are
Pastor hee should offend against the vertue of Religion for the which offence his spirituall Pastor might punish him with Ecclesiasticall censures and of this manner of exemption by way of command and spirituall coercion all the Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells which doe signifie imply or suppose that Clergy men may by the authority of the Church without the consent of temporall Princes bee exempted from secular powers either touching their persons or their goods may bee very well vnderstood I said if the necessity of the Church doth require it for at this present I will not enter into particulars what manner of necessity is required that a spirituall Pastor may impose such a command vpon his temporall Prince 34 But the controuersie betwixt mee and my Aduersaries betwixt those Catholikes who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes and those on the contrary side is whether spirituall Pastors as they are spirituall Pastors or by vertue of their spirituall power haue not onely by way of command and spirituall coercion but also by way of sentence authority to exempt without the consent of Princes Clergy men who before were subiect to them in temporalls from the directiue and coerciue power of secular Princes in such sort that after the sentence of such exemption bee giuen Clergy men are no more the subiects of that secular Prince for that his spirituall Pastor doth depriue him of that ciuill power which before the sentence hee had ouer Clergy men And what is said of particular Bishops in respect of Princes who are their spirituall children is to bee vnderstood of the Supreme spirituall Pastor in respect of all Christian Princes who are subiect to him in spiritualls This is the true state of the question 35 So that the Reader may clearely perceiue that although from the first manner of exemption by way of command and spirituall coercion no good argument can be drawne to proue that the spirituall power can depose Princes and depriue them of their Regall authoritie by way of sentence yet there is great coherence betwixt these two questions concerning the power of spirituall Pastors to depose Princes by way of sentence and their power to exempt by way of sentence Cleargie men from all subiection to Secular Princes For the first question is whether the spirituall power can by way of sentence depriue temporall Princes of all their temporall power and absolue all their Subiects from their temporall alleagiance and the second is whether it can depriue them of some part of their temporall power and absolue some of their subiects from their temporall allegiance And therefore those Catholikes who doe grant the second will easily grant the first and who doe grant the first must of necessity grant the second for that there can be no sufficient reason alleadged why the spirituall power can in order to spirituall good depriue Princes of some part of their Regall authoritie and not of all and absolue some subiects from their temporall allegiance and not all and if it can depriue oâ— all iâ— must needes follow that it can also of some part And contrariwise those Catholikes who affirme that the spirituall power cannot exempt ot absolue Cleargie men from their temporall allegiance and subiection to temporall Princes must consequenily affirme that it can not exempt or absolue all subiects from their temporall allegiance and who affirme that it can not absolue or exempt all subiects from their temporall allegiance nor depriue a temporalâ— Prince of all his Regall authority will easily affirme that it cannot exempt or absolue Cleargie men from their temporall alleagiance and subiection nor depriue a temporall Prince of any part of his Regall authority 36 But some doe greatly vrge this obiection If the spirituall power can command temporall Princes not to exercise their temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men without the consent of their Ecclesiasticall superiour it doth consequently follow that a temporall Prince doth offend if he transgresse the iust and lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour and therefore it seemeth that a temporall Prince hath no power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men after such a command supposing it to be lawfull vnlesse wee will grant that a temporall Prince hath power to commit sinne and to transgresse the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour 37 To this obiection wherewith I haue knowne diuers men of learning to bee somewhat perplexed those Catholikes who deny that the spirituall power can depriue by way of sentence a temporall Prince of his Regall Authority either wholly or in part may easily answer in this manner that if a temporall Prince doth excercise his temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Clergy men against the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour hee sinneth indeed against Religion and the generall vertue of obedience in that hee vseth his power contrary to the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour but hee doth not sinne against the speciall vertue of legall or morall iustice in vsing his authority ouer them who are not his subiects and ouer whom hee hath no temporall power and Authority in that manner as another man who is not their Prince should offend Neither is it vnvsuall for a man to commit a sinne in doing that which in respect of iustice hee hath power and authority to doe 38 As for example it is a sinne against the vertue of liberality for one to giue away his goods prodigally although if wee respect iustice hee hath true and full power to giue them away for that he giueth nothing but that which is his owne and therefore that prodigall guift although it be vnlawfull yet is not vniust as iustice is taken not as it comprehendeth all vertues in generall but in particular for a speciall vertue and one of the foure Cardinall vertues So also it is a sin against the vertue of temperance to giue money to commit an vnhonest act and yet the gift is not vniust for that hee giueth nothing but his owne and which according to iustice hee hath power to giue So likewise if a Ghostly father command his penitent to giue a certaine part of his goods to the poore in satisfaction of his sinnes if the penitent doe bestow them otherwise then hee was commanded hee sinneth against the vertue of Religion and Sacrament of pennance in transgressing his Ghostly fathers lawful command but he committeth no iniustice because hee giueth that which is his owne and which if wee regard the vertue of iustice hee hath power to giue neither doth the command of his Ghostly father depriue him of the right dominion property and power which he had before ouer those goods 39 Lastly if the Pope should vpon iust cause suspend a Priest from the Altar or a Bishop from his Episcopall function and consequently forbid the Priest to consecrate and the Bishop to giue orders if they should disobey the Popes lawfull command they should sinne against the