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
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
mysticall bodie of Christ and the spirituall Kingdome of Christ are altogether the same of which common-wealth Kings with Laikes Bishops with Clerks are parts as oftentimes hath beene sayd In which Christian com-wealth and mysticall body and Kingdome of Christ all things are so well disposed and ordered that temporall things doe serue spirituall and ciuill power is subiect to Ecclesiasticall which conclusion my Aduersarie Widdrington hath many waies attempted to ouerthrow but he was not able And he was not able not onely to ouerthrow the conclusion but also he hath not beene able to weaken at all with any probable answer the first argument which Card. Bellarmine brought to prooue this conclusion which the Readers will easily perceiue if without perturbation of minde they will consider that which hath beene sayd by vs. 24 But this Reply of D. Schulckenius is as fraudulent and insufficient as the former for in effect it is only a repetition of his former Reply to which I haue already answered besides some fraudulent dealing which he hath vsed herein And first it is very true that I granted the antecedent proposition of this second Reply of Card. Bellarmine but that all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist in the antecedent proposition or assumption as D. Schulckenius affirmeth is very vntrue and I wonder that D. Schulckenius is not ashamed with such boldnesse to affirme the same The Antecedent proposition was that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporal gouernment if it hurt the spirituall good not onely of his owne Subiects but also of the Subiects of other Christian Princes and this proposition I did willingly grant him but the force of his argument did not consist only in this antecedent proposition as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth but in the consequence which hee inferred from this antecedent proposition or if wee will reduce his argument to a syllogisticall forme in his Minor proposition or assumption which was this but of this to wit that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment in the case aforesaid no other reason can be giuen but that both powers are members of the same body and one power or body subiect to the other And this consequence assumption or Minor proposition wherein the whole force of his argument did consist I vtterly denyed and I alledged as you haue seene an other plaine and perspicuous reason why a Christian Prince in the case aforesaid is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment to wit not for that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or for that they make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power but for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are parts and members not onely of the temporall but also of the spiritual common-wealth for which cause a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it is hurtfull to the spirituall good of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof he is a true part and member as I declared before 25. Secondly it is very vntrue that I doe any waie contradict my selfe as D. Schulckenius affirmeth first in denying that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them are parts of one and the selfe-same Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ and afterwards in granting that temporall Kings and their subiects are members of the same spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For these propositions temporall power is not per se subiect to spirituall power and temporall Princes are subiect to spirituall power are not repugnant or contradictorie one to the other as neither these propositions are contradictory Temporall power and spirituall power are not parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and temporall Princes are parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For contradiction according to Aristotle n Lib. 1. de Interp. cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the same thing and in the same manner But there is no man so ignorant that will affirme that the same thing and in the same manner is affirmed and denied in the aforesaid propositions for the subiect of the first propositions is temporall power in abstracto and it is taken formally and in the second propositions it is temporall power in concreto and it is taken onely materially and hath this sense that temporall Princes who haue both temporall power and also spirituall subiection are indeed subiect to the spirituall power and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power but onely materially who haue temporall power but formally as they haue spiritual subiection But D. Schulckenius doth manifestly contradict himselfe as I plainely shewed before o Cap. 2. first affirming That the Church of Christ is compounded of temporall and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers as he himselfe also confesseth and afterwards in denying that it is compounded of temporall or ciuill power which is formally ciuill 26. But marke now good Reader what fraude D. Schulckenius vseth in prouing that I doe manifestly contradict my selfe He would seeme to his Reader to proue that I affirme and deny one and the selfe same thing for this he taketh vpon him to proue and yet he proueth nothing else but that which I haue alwaies affirmed and neuer denied to wit that Christian Kings and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to the spirituall power thereof but the contradiction which hee pretended to proue he doth not proue at all nor make any shew of proofe thereof to wit that it is all one to say that Christian Princes and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to her spirituall power which I alwaies granted and that the temporall and spirituall power doe compound the Church or that the temporall power it selfe is per se subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which I euer denied and out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds haue cleerely proued the contrary and haue plainely shewed that temporall power doth only compound a temporall or ciuill body or common-wealth whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius doth heere expresly affirme and that the Church of Christ his mysticall body and spirituall Kingdome or Christian common-wealth taking the Christian common-wealth for the Church onely and not for the Christian world as it containeth temporall and spirituall power is compounded onely of spirituall and not of temporall power In which Church of Christ and also Christian world all things are so well ordered and disposed that temporall things ought by the intention of good Christians to serue spirituall things and temporall Princes although in spiritualls they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church yet in temporalls or as they haue temporall power they are not subiect but supreame and consequently the
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
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.
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