disiunctiue proposition as I haue often repeated before Secondly hee would seeme to proue the same by this argument His Maiestie is perswaded â—hat the doctrine not only which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also which speculatiuely maintaineth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes is hereticall and repugnant to the holy Scriptures as may euidently appeare by the manifold places and texts of Scripture which he alledgeth c. yea and hee talledgeth much more Scripture to condemne the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then Widdrington doth for violent attempts against their persons therefore it is manifest that according to his Maiesties intention both parts of that clause should be abiured as hereticall 97 But first this consequence of my Aduersary His Maiestie is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to murther Princes but also to depose them is hereticall therefore his Maiesties meaning or intention was that in the aforesaid clause of the oath both parts should be abiured as hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense whereof I will speake beneath p Nu. 106. et seq M. Fitzherbert might haue seene if it had pleased him in my Theologicall disputation q Cap. 4. sec 3. to be very insufficient where I did clearly shewe that there is a great difference to be made betwixt his Maiesties perswasion or opinion and his meaning or intention For his Maiesty doth according to the grounds of the Protestant Religion defend diuers opinions which neuerthelesse he doth not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects by this oath to defend and professe 98 As for example His Maiesty is perswaded that he is the supreame Lord and Gouernour in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall and yet he doth not intend that his Catholike Subiects shall by those words of this oath our Soueraigne Lord King Iames professe and maintaine the same Neither doth he ground the lawfulnes of this oath and the abiuration of the doctrine condemned therein vpon his Ecclesiasticall Primacie as my Aduersary here seemeth to insinuate for that the Oath of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth r In his Apologie pag. 46. was deuised for putting a difference betwene Papists and Protestants but this oath was ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-treason 99 Also his Maiesty is perswaded that the Pope hath not power to excommunicate his Maiesty and yet he doth intend by those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. to binde English Catholikes to professe the same Å¿ See my Th. Disp cap. 4. sec 1. howsoeuer Card. Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez without sufficient proofe and M. Fitzherbert without any proofe at all doe affirme that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in this oath For although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty also affirmeth t In his Premonition pag 9. at the first framing of this oath made it to containe that the Pope had no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yet his Maiestie did purposely decline that poiâ—t u In the Catalogue of the lyes of Tortus nu 1. and forced them to reforme it onely making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Popes can warrant his Subiects to practise against his person or state as indeed taking any such temporall violence to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 100 Likewise his Maiesty is perswaded that all reconcilings of his Subiects to the Pope and all returnings of English Priests made by the Popes authority into this Realme c are truely and properly treasons although not naturally and forbidden by the lawe of nature vnlesse they be repugnant to true naturall and ciuill alleagiance yet positiue and forbidden by the lawes of the Realme neuerthelesse by those words of the oath to disclose all treasons c. he did not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects to reueale and disclose such kinde of treasons vnlesse they be truely and properly vnnaturall treasons and repugnant to naturall alleagiance For that his Maiesty was carefull as he himselfe also writeth x In his Premonition pag. 9. naturall that nothing should be contained in this oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obediednce with a promise to resist all contrarie vnnaturall and vnciuill violence 101 Wherefore seeing that his Maiestie doth binde the swearer to take this oath according to the plaine and common sense and vnderstanding of the words although his Maiesty be perswaded that it is hereticall to hould that the Pope hath power to depose princes yet from thence it cannot rightly be concluded that therfore by this oath he intended to bind his Catholike Subiects to acknowledge and professe the same vnlesse the words of the oath according to their proper and vsuall signification doe imply the same Considering therefore that as I haue clearly conuinced to make that proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other to be hereticall it is sufficient according to the common sense of the words and the approued doctrine of Logicians that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as without doubt the latter part of this disiunction is it is euident that his Maiesties mtaning was no other then to binde the swearer to that sense to which the words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification doe binde And thus much concerning the consequence 102 Now touching the antecedent proposition although it be true that his Maiesty is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also the speculatiue doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes is a false doctrine and repugnant to holy Scriptures and consequently hereticall taking hereticall for that which implyeth an vntruth contrary to the word of God reuealed in holy Scriptures in which sense also all those Catholikes who doe hould this doctrine of the Popes power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes to be false doe hould also that it is contrary to the word of God and consequently also hereticall yet if hereticall be taken for that which importeth a knowne and manifest vntruth repugnant to holy Scriptures and so acknowledged also to be by the common consent also of Catholikes my Aduersarie will hardly proue that his Maiesty is perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which holdeth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes or to depose them by a iuridicall sentence is hereticall in this sense or repugnant to holy Scriptures in the opinion of all or of the most part of Catholikes albeit he be perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which approueth the Popes power to murther or to take away the liues
by Gregorius de Valentia a Secunda secundae Disp 1. q 12 â—unc 2. assertio secuÌ„da Schioppius b In his Ecclesiasticus cap. 42. pag 140. and now lately by Suarez c In dâ—fâ—es fidei lib. 6. cap. 4. nu 18. 20. for which cause principally his book was by a sollemne decree of the Parliament publikely condemned and burnt at Paris by the hangman as containing damnable pernicious scandalous and seditious propositions tending to the subuersion of States and to induce the subiects of Kings and Soueraigne Princes and others to attempt against their sacred persons neither is that Decree which was publâ—shed and printed by the Kings authority as yet recalled or Suarez booke permitted by authority to be sold at Paris howsoeuer some fauourers of the Iesuits doe not sticke to affirme heere among the common people Yea and M. Fitzherbert himselfe although hee will not forsooth meddle with the liues of Princes yet boldly affirmeth d Cap. â— nu 15. 16. 17. that the Pope hath power to take away my life and hath power ouer the goods and liues of all Christians which wordes beeing generall and including all Christians and consequently Christian Princes according to his doctrine as you shall see beneath e Part. 3. cap. 9. 10. doe cleerely shew what his opin on and iudgement is in this poynt touching the killing also or murdering of Christian Princes 61. Now to his argument First therefore his Maior proposition I doe willingly grant to wit that if there be any doubt or question concerning the sense of any law or any part thereof and consequently for the cleering of any difficulty or doubt in this oath three things are specially to be pondered for the exposition of it the words of the law the mind or intention of the law-maker and the reason or end of the law and that the words of the law and consequently of this oath are to be vnderstood in their proper and vsuall signification as also by a peculiar clause it is expressly ordained therein And of this his Maior proposition no man maketh doubt 62. But his Minor proposition I vtterly deny and to his first proofe thereof I answere as easily but more fully with the like words which hee himselfe vseth For I affirme that the contrary is euident and that the words of this clause now in question do make clearely for vs wherein I dare boldly appeale to the iudgement of any learned and discreet Reader for that no man of any learning or iudgement who knoweth the difference betwixt an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implieth a free choice to take either part of the disiunction I doe not say at the first sight but after mature diliberation and a diligent examination of all the words of this clause and of the natures of an absolute and conditionall disiunctiue proposition will or can reasonably conceiue that in a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a freedome to choose which part of the disiunction one will as is the proposition which is now in question both parts of the disiunction must be abiured alike for that to make the whole conditionall disiunctiue proposition to be hereticall or to be abiured as hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as I may truly and lawfully abiure this proposition as hereticall God may be honoured or blasphemed by his creatures or which is all one it is in the free choice of creatures to honour or to blaspheme God wherein one onely part of the disiunction is hereticall and the other of faith and so both parts of the disiunction are not abiured as hereticall although the whole and entire proposition be hereticall and may therefore be truely abiured as hereticall 63. What any learned man but especially the vulgar sort of Catholikes considering the different grounds of Catholikes and Protestants in points of Religion and that the oath was made by a Protestant Parliament and that the title of the Act wherein the taking thereof is commanded is for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants and such like reasons may at the first sight conceiue of the lawfulnesse thereof as also what they may at the first sight conceiue of the sense of this clause which is now in question considering that the coniunction disiunctiue or doth more vsually make an absolute disiunctiue then a conditionall disiunctiue proposition for that where once it followeth the verbe may and consequently maketh a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which is equiualent to a copulatiue aboue a hundred times at least it doth not follow the verbe may but maketh an absolute disiunctiue proposition and withall not examining the difference betwixt an absolute and a conditionall disiunctiue proposition may I say at the first sight conceiue of the esens and meaning of this clause of the Oath is no sufficient Argument to proue that this clause or any other of the Oath is according to the true proper and vsuall vnderstanding of the wordes in very deed vnlawfull For many things may seeme to bee so at the first sight which after a second reuiew and a more diligent examination of the matter do seeme to be far otherwise 64 My Aduersary following therein Card Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Suarez did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to excommunicate the King was denyed in this Oath but at the second sight and vpon better consideration hee hath as it seemes perceiued his error and ouer sight for that being charged therewith by me hee hath passed it ouer altogether with silence Many also of our English Catholikes did at the first sight conceiue that the Popes power to absolue from sinnes to grant Pardons and indulgences and to dispense in oathes was denyed in this oath taking some colour or pretence from those words absolue pardons and dispensations but after the second sight they saw that there was no such thing as at the first sight they conceiued Many such like exceptions I could alleadge which at the first sight some conceiued against the Oath which vpon the second review and after a more diligent consideration appeared to haue no firme ground to rely vpon 65 But if any learned or discreet Catholick man will make a second review and a more diligent examination of the Oath and of all the clauses and wordes contained therein and wil also duly consider which I obserued in my Theologicall disputation f Cap. 4. sec 3 the difference betwixt the opinion and the intention of his Maiesty and that although his Maiesty and the Parliament be of opinion that the Pope hath no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yeâ— they did not intend to binde Catholiks to acknowledge so much in this Oath and that although the title of that Act wherein many lawes were enacted against Catholiques touching points of Religion for the which it might well be called an Act for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants euen for
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
cap. 14. replieth in this manner That which I sayd that the members of the same body are connected and that one doth depend vpon another I vnderstood of members of a diuerse kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder and a head and not of members of the same kinde as are two hands two feet two eyes two eares For the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power whereof we speake are of a diuerse kinde as it is manifest and words are to bee vnderstood according to the matter which is treated of otherwise there could not bee any demonstration so certaine against which there could not bee brought some cauill Therefore Kingly power which is principall in his kinde if it compound one body with the Ecclesiasticall power which also in his kinde is principall must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that in one bodie there be two heads and seeing that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in steede of Christ it doth plainely follow that a King must either bee no member of this body or else hee must bee subiect to the Pope and in the same manner the ciuill power which doth chiefely reside in the King must either bee subiect to the spirituall which doth chiefely reside in the Pope or else it must remaine out of the Church in that manner as a finger cannot be in the body which doth not depend vpon the hand nor a hand which doth not depend vpon the arme nor an arme which doth not depend vpon the shoulder nor a shoulder which doth not depend vpon the head 5. But that which Barclay saith a little after that the spirituall and ciuill power are as two shoulders in a body whereof neither is subiect to the other but both of them are subiect to one head which is Christ is not onely false because those powers are not of the same kinde that they may be compared to two shoulders but also it appertaines to the heresie of this time For what doe the heretikes of this time more endeauour to perswade the people then that the Pope is not the visible head of the body of the Church vnto whom all Christians if they will be saued must bee subiect But this Barclay of his owne accord doth grant them who neuerthelesse in all his booke doth make himselfe a Catholike Therefore the spirituall and ciuill power are not well compared to two shoulders but they ought either to bee compared to the spirit and flesh as did S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the place often cited compare them or else to the shoulder and head to wit principall members wherof neuerthelesse the one although of it selfe very strong and potent ought to bee directed and gouerned by the other which is superiour 6 But this Reply of Card Bellarmine although at the first sight may seeme especially to the vnlearned to haue in it some shew of probabilitie yet to the iudicious Reader who will be pleased to examine it more exactly it will clearely appeare to be in very deede very vnsound and fallacious to D. Barclay very iniurious to Catholike religion very scandalous and in very truth to haue in it no probabilitie at all d Cap. 14. §. 2o. as Mr. Iohn Barclay in his answer to Card. Bellarmine hath most clearely convinced And first whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that when he said that members of the same body are depending one vpon the other he vnderstood of memberâ— of a diuers kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder a head and not of members of the same kind as are two hands two feet c. Mr. Barclay replyeth that it is vntrue that members of a diuerse kind are depending one vpon the other as the hand doth not depend vpon the foot the liuer vpon the lights the splene vpon the shoulders c. 7 And as for those examples which Card. Bellarmine doth bring hee vseth therein great deceipt for neither doth the finger for that cause depend vpon the hand nor the hand vpon the arme nor the arme vpon the shoulder for that they are members of one body but for that by order of nature the finger cannot consist or bee of it selfe without the hand nor the hand without the arme nor the arme without the shoulder Neuerthelesse many members of the same body also of a diuerse kinde can well consist one without the other as the eye without the eare the shoulder without the foot the nose without the eie c as likewise these two members whereof we now treate of the Christian common-wealth not onely may but also did actually as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth e Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. in the A-Apostles time consist one without the other And if this proposition of Card. Bellarmine be true that the members of one body if they bee of a diuerse kinde must depend one vpon the other hee must acknowledge that in one kingdome the Musician must depend vpon the Physician or the Physician vpon the Musician the Shooe-maker vpon the Taylor or the Taylor vpon the Shooe-maker the Lord Chamberlaine vpon the Lord Treasurer or the Lord Treasurer vpon the Lord Chamberlaine to omit infinite other such like trades and dignitieâ— all which are members of the same bodie or Kingdome whereas it is too too manifest that they are not subiect or depend one vpon the other but either immediately vpon the King or vpon those Magistrates whom the King shall appoint 8. Secondly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in place of Christ from whence it doth clearely follow that a King must either be no member of this body or else he must be subiect to the Pope Mr. Barclay replyeth that Card. Bellarmine doth cunningly equiuocate in that word Church For the Pope indeed is head of the Church that is of Ecclesiasticall things or of Christians as they are Christians in so much that a King cannot be a member of the Church being taken in this manner but hee must be subâ—ect to the Pope But if by the Church hee vnderstand both powers ciuill and Ecclesiasticall which are among Christians both Lay-men and Cleargiemen who are ioyned by one linke of faith he iâ— altogether deceiued For the Pope is not the head of ciuill things and therfore in vaine doth Card. Bellarmine affirme that Kingly power must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that there be two heades in one bodie For taking the Church in that sense as it comprehendeth ciuill and spirituall power the Church hath Christ only for the head and the Pope and Kings for chiefe members who also in an other respect are ministeriall heades vnder Christ the King of ciuill gouernment and the Pope of spirituall Besides Card. Bellarmine doth now change his medium as the Logicians call it His argument which he tooke vpon him to defend was this They are members of one body therefore one
Ecclesiasticall Canons and priuileges of Princes exempted from the coactiue power of Secular Magistrates and not at all from their directiue power but that they are subiect to the directiue power of Secular Princes in those things which doe not repugne to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and their state and consequently that Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles and long after were subiect to the coactiue power of temporall Princes Yea and the ancient Fathers especially S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius doe in expresse words affirme n Ad Rom. 13. that whether hee be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle hee is according to the doctrine of S. Paul subiect to Secular powers Only the Canonists yet not all of them as Pope Innoc Nauar and Coverruvias whom now Card Bellarm leauing the Diuines his ancient opinion vpon very weake grounds as you shall see doth follow do vehemently defend that Cleargie men are by the law of God and nature exempted from all subiection to Secular Princes 8 Now you shall see for what reasons Card Bellarmine was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable For if the reason saith he o In his Recognitions pag. 16. of the exemption of Clergie men be for that they are ministers of Christ who is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth and King of Kinges truely they are exempted de iure not onely from the power of Christian Kinges but also of Heathen Princes If Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason wherefore the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Christian Princes haue exempted Cleargie men I doe not say from all subiection for notwithstanding their exemption they still remaine subiects to temporall Princes but from paying of tributes from the tribunall of Secular Magistrates and such like be for that they are Ministers of Christ in spirituall but not in Secular matters I will not contradict this reason but from hence it doth not follow that therefore Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles when there were no such positiue lawes of their exemption were not in temporall causes subiect de iure to infidell Princes 9. But if Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason why Cleargie men are not onely by the Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes of Princes but also by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subiection to temporall Princes is for that they are Ministers of Christ who is the King of Kings this reason doth not proue but suppose that which is in question to wit that Cleargie men are by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subjection to temporall Princes which the common opinion of Diuines doth constantly deny whose opinion to account improbable or temerarious for such a weake reason which doth not proue but suppose the question were in my iudgement to exceede the limits of Christian prudence and modesty Neither is there any repugnance in naturall reason but that the Ministers of Christ who as it is probable was according to his humanity onely a spirituall and not a temporall King and although he was also a temporall King yet Secular Princes are his Ministers in temporalls and the Apostles their Successors are his Ministers in spiritualls might in temporall causes be truely and de iure subject to temporall Princes as the Apostles them-selues who are Christ his chiefe Ministers in his spirituall kingdome and Church were according to the expresse doctrine of the ancient Fathers as they are parts members and cittizens of the temporall common-wealth subiect to temporall Princes in their temporal kingdomes and in temporall affaires Neither doe those words of Saint Paul p Act. 28. I am constrained to appeale to Caesar signifie that hee was subject to Caesar onely de facto and not de iure more then if a Priest being vniustly oppressed by his Ordinary should appeale to the Pope and say that he was constrained for that hee had small hope to finde iustice at his Ordinaries hands to appeale to the Pope signifie thereby that hee was not subject de iure but onely de facto to the Pope 10. An other reason which mooued Card. Bellarmine to recall his former opinion and to affirme that Saint Paul did not appeale to Caesar as to his owne lawfull Iudge but as to the Iudge of the president of Iewrie and of the Iewes who did vniustly oppresse him was saith he q In tract contra Bard. cap. 3 pag. 51. for that the cause of which they did accuse him being spirituall to wit concerning the resurrection of Christ and the ceremonies of the law of Moyses could not by right appertaine to a Heathen Prince See the Acts of the Apostles chap. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 11. But truely it is strange that Card. Bellarmine durst so confidently remit his Reader to those chapters of the Acts of the Apostles to proue that the cause whereof Saint Paul was accused by the Iewes to the Tribune and President of Iewrie and wherefore he appealed to Caesar was spirituall and not appertaining by right to a Heathen Prince vnlesse hee will haue the raising of sedition and tumults and the committing of a crime worthy of death not to belong to a Heathen Prince For it is cleere by those chapters that the Iewes accused him of sedition and that he had offended Caesar and endeauoured to haue him therefore put to death We haue found saith one Tertullus r Act. 24. who went to accuse S. Paul before the President Felix this man pestiferous and raising seditions to all the Iewes in thâ— world c. And afterwards Å¿ Act. 25. the Iewes before the President Festus obiected against S. Paul many and greâ—uous crimes which they could not proue but they might easily haue proued that S. Paul did preach the Resurrection of Christ for that hee confessed the same before both the Presidents and King Agrippa Wherevpon King Agrippa said to S. Paul t Act. 26 A little thou perswadest me to become a Christian And before u Act. 25. S. Paul made answere to the President Festus that neither against the law of the Iewes nor against the Temple nor against Caesar haue I any thing offended which signifieth that he was accused that he had offended against Caesar And a little after saith S. Paul to Festus The Iewes I haue not hurt as thou very well knowest For if I haue hurt them or done any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dye but if none of those thinges be whereof they accuse me no man can giue me to them I appeale to Caesar 12 By all which it is very cleare that the Iewes sought to haue S. Paul put to death and that all the crimes which they obiected against him were false and consequently that he was not accused merely for preaching the resurrection of Christ which S. Paul would neuer haue denied but for raising sedition and tumults in the people and for doing wrong to Caesar Whereupon S. Chrysostome x Hem.
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