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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Popes Holinesse and to our temporall Soueraigne compelled mee first to write and now also to continue for which although I shall hereafter suffer as hitherto I haue done reproch infamie disgrace losse of friends and other euils yet I will still pray for my persecutors and remit my cause to GOD aboue assuring my selfe that in time conuenient he will in this world or the next or both be a iust Iudge reuenger Protector and rewarder of the Innocent THE PREFACE TO the Reader Wherein Mr. FITZHERBERTS PREFACE is confuted the matter which WIDDRINGTON handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truely probable and neither preiudiciall to his MAIESTIES seruice nor to the Consciences of Catholikes 1. IT is not vnknowne to thee Courteous Reader the great controuersie hath been of late yeares especially among vs English Catholikes concerning the new oath of Allegiance which his Maiestie by Act of Parliament hath ordained to make triall how his Catholike Subiects stand affected towards him in point of there loyaltie and due obedience For although his Holinesse by the instigation and importunitie no doubt of others hath by three seuerall Breues declared the said oath to be vnlawfull and to containe in it many things cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation and many learned men especially Iesuites as Card. Bellarmine Fa Gretzer Lessius Becanus and now lastly Suarez haue by publike writings endeauoured to conuince the same neuerthelesse since that Mr. George Blackwell then Archpraesbiter and many other learned Priests did from the very first publishing of this oath defend it to bee lawfull and not to containe in it any thing which either expressely or couertly is contrarie to Catholike faith or saluation the said oath hath been maintained as lawfull by many learned Catholike Priests and hath been taken by the most part of those Lay-Catholikes to whom it hath been tendered assuring themselues that his Holinesse command for the refusing thereof being onely a declaratiue precept and not grounded vpon any infallible definition but at the most vpon a probable opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes which is the maine substance of the oath as my Aduersarie here a In the end of his Preface confesseth and Fa Suarez b Lib. 6. defens a cap. 2. also before him expressely acknowledgeth is not according to Suarez doctrine of force to binde them especially with so great preiudice to his Maiestie and themselues to embrace an vncertaine and doubtfull opinion or to obey the Popes declaratiue precept grounded therevpon 2 I therefore with other Catholikes considering how greatly this oath doth concerne our allegiance and obedience due to God and Caesar and the great harme both spirituall and temporall which may ensue by breach thereof thought it our best course to set downe sincerely all the chiefest arguments which haue been hitherto by any Author or which might in our iudgements be obiected by any against the said oath together with the answers which haue been or might be brought to the same Obiections and withall dutifull submission to propound them to his Holinesse humbly requesting him that he would be pleased diligently to peruse them and in regard of his Pastorall Office would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholike faith satisfie the difficulties which doe perplex our consciences to make knowne vnto vs what clauses of the oath are I doe not say according to the opinion of Card. Bellarmine or some other Catholike Doctors who are no necessarie rule of the Catholike faith but according to Catholike doctrine necessarily to be beleeued by all men repugnant to faith and saluation as his Holinesse affirmeth in his Breues And this I performed in my Theologicall Disputation partly at the request of many Catholikes whose case I greatly pittied but chiefely for the duty I owed to God Religion my Prince and Countrey Neither did I intend in that Disputation to affirme any thing of my selfe but as representing the persons of those who were perswaded that the oath may or may not be lawfully taken And because when the said Disputation was in the presse almost finished there came to my hands an English booke composed by F.T. and entituled a Supplement to the Discussion c. wherein this Authour endeauoured to proue the said oath to bee repugnant to all lawes both humane and diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse in that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope I thought good to touch briefely in an Admonition to the Reader both the substance of this Authors discourse and of the chiefest arguments which hee brought against the oath and also the answers which might bee made to them to the end his Holinesse might be fully informed of all the reasons which are alledged as well against as for the taking of the oath And this was the cause that I writing in Latin did to informe his Holinesse briefely set downe what hee had written in English against the aforesaid oath 3 But the said Authour F. T. who now hath turned backward the first letters of his name into T. F. and is knowne acknowledged yea and boasted of by his fauourers to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English Iesuite for which cause I was the more bold to expresse his name hath of late set forth a Reply in English in defence of his arguments c In the Praeface nu 2. which I briefely answered in Latine to the end saith he that our Countreymen whom it most importeth to vnderstand well the qualitie and state of this controuersie may discouer my weakenesse and auoide the danger of their soules whereto they may be drawne by the false fame and opinion that many haue conceiued of my sufficiency But howsoeuer my Aduersarie or any other bee conceited of my weakenesse or sufficiencie for time will make knowne the weakenesse or sufficiencie of vs both I doe not doubt God willing but notwithstanding all his vaunting bragges to discouer cleerely the weakenesse and insufficiencie of his Reply albeit hee hath beene furthered with the former writings of many learned men especially Card. Bellarmine Fa Lessius now lastly of Suarez from whom he borroweth the chiefest Replyes he bringeth to my answeres yet concealing their names to omit the many other helpes I want which he may haue in the place where hee liueth both by the conference of learned men the commoditie of all sorts of books wherewith that place is furnished And although hee vseth very spiteful and slanderous speeches against me for the which I pray God to forgiue him thinking thereby to magnifie himselfe disgrace me and promote his owne cause but in the end hee will finde that such exorbitant and irreligious courses will tend to his owne disgrace and not mine and hee greatly preiudiciall both to his cause and conscience yet I wil abstaine from such vncharitable and vniust proceedings and with all modestie I will defend my owne
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
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
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
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
free from tributes as those who appertaine to the familie of Christ. Neither doth it therefore from hence follow that Cleargie men are by the law of God free from tributes For first that which S. Austen saith is not in the words of our Sauiour but it is onely gathered by a probable consequence For our Sauiour doth onely speake of the true and naturall children of Kinges as S. Chrysostome doth expound that place Secondly our Sauiour himselfe doth allso properly command nothing in this place that it may be called the law of God but doth onely shew by the vse and custome of men that the children of Kinges are free from tributes Thus Card. Bellarmine answered in his former Editions which answere in his later editions he altogether concealeth but for what cause I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader 23 By all which it is apparant that our Sauiour did onely speake of himselfe and of the naturall children of Kings when hee vsed those words therefore sonnes are free and of the seruants or familie either of Kings or of the children of Kinges he saith nothing at all and therefore from an other consequence drawne from the vse and custome of men and not from the words of our Sauiour can it be gathered that those who are seruants or of the familie of the children of Kings are exempted either from subiection to the inferiour magistrates of the kingdome or from the paying of tributs But by no probable consequence it can be deduced that those who are either seruants and of the familie of Kinges children or also seruants and of the familie of the King himselfe are by the custome of any nation either exempted from subiection to inferiour Magistrates and much lesse to the King himselfe or also from paying tributes vnlesse the King vpon some other speciall consideration doth grant to any of them such a priuiledge 24 To those words of our Sauiour But that wee may not scandalize them c. it is easily answered according to the first exposition of that didrachme which Card. Bellarmine thinketh to be most true that it was a tribute due to the temple or tabernacle and not to Caesar For I doe willingly grant that S. Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe gouernour of his Church and temple was exempted from paying tribute to the temple But although we should admit that the aforesaide didrachme was a tribute due to Caesar and not to the temple yet from those words of our Sauiour no sufficient argument can be drawne to proue that S. Peter and especially the rest of the Apostles were by the law of God exempted from paying tributes and much lesse from temporall subiection to Heathen Princes 25 First for that we may probably answere with Iansenius and Abulensis that Christ did speake to S. Peter in the plurall number but that wee may not scandalize them not for that S. Peter was bound to pay tribute onely by reason of scandall but either because our Sauiour did speake of his owne person vsing the plurall number for the singular as it is vsuall especially among great persons we are wont saith S. Epiphanius h In the heresie of the Manichies to speake singular thinges plurall and plurall singular For wee say wee haue tould you and we haue seene you and we come to you and yet there be not two who speake but one who is present or else because the scandall which Christ should haue giuen would in some sort haue redounded to S. Peter as being a mediatour in that businesse And therefore as well affirmeth Iansenius i In Câ—ncord Euang. cap. 69. in Mat. 17. our Sauiour did pay tribute for himselfe onely to auoid scandall for S. Peter to honour him as with a certaine reward for his faith obedience and diligence as a mediatour of this busines and an executor of the Miracle of finding the stater in the fishes mouth or as Barradius the Iesuite and others doe affirme k In cap 17. Mat. â—om 2. Lib. 10. cap. 32. to honour him aboue the rest as the Prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church See Abulensis q. 198. 199. and 200. in cap. 17. Mat. and Barradius vpon this place 26 Secondly although wee should grant that our Sauiour did for some speciall cause exempt S. Peter from paying tribute to Caesar either by a personall priuiledge or else reall and descending to his successors it doth not therefore follow that he did exempt him from all ciuil subiection to temporal Princes as neither doth it follow that because the Children of Kinges for that their goodes and their fathers are common or any of the Kinges seruants are by speciall priuiledge exempted from paying tributes they are therefore exempted from all ciuil subiection and alleagiance to the King 27 Thirdly for that there is no probabilitie in my iudgment that either Christ did by those words intend to exempt the rest of the Apostles seeing that there is no mention at all made of them in that place or also that this priuiledg of exemption is extended to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in regard onely that they were of the spirituall familie or Church of Christ I say of the spirituall familie for that I will not deny but that as they were of his corporall familie and liued with him here on earth and had no corporall goods but such as belonged to Christ they were exempted from paying tributes but not from ciuill subiection to Heathen Princes because the exemption of seruants with their Maister or of those who are of the familie of Kinges Children with the Kinges Children themselues is not grounded in the law of nature but onely in a certaine congruity and custome of men from which custome this argument to exempt the Apostles for that they were of Christs familie is drawne but there is no such custome among nations that the seruants or familie of Kinges Children or of the King himselfe are exempted from paying tributes although the children of Kinges hauing no other goodes then which are their fathers be exempted as Card. Bellarmine a little aboue affirmed But howsoeuer neither the seruants to Kinges children nor the kinges children themselues are exempted from ciuill subiection or from the directiue or coerciue power of the King 28 And therefore neither Fa. Suarez who handleth this question at large dare affirme that from those words of our Sauiour it can certainely but onely probably be gathered that this exemption was extended to the rest of the Apostles I answere saith hee l In defens fidâ— Caâ—â—o 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap. 8. in sine that it is true that Christ did not say plainly that the familie is exempted with the children neither doth it follow by any euident or necessary consequence and therefore the aforesaid opinion for as much as belongeth to this part is neither of faith nor altogether certaine Neuerthelesse it is most likely that this extention to
offer any violence to his Maiesties Royall person c. and this whole or entire disiunctiue proposition consisting of all these particular branches M. Fitzherbert will haue to be abiured as false Now hee that hath but any small skill in Logicke may easily perceiue a great difference betwixt the sense and meaning of these two oaths or propositions For in the oath prescribed by his Maiestie wee may by vertue of the words and from the force and signification of the disiunctiue coniunction or which as I haue shewed before is by reason of the precedent negation not equiualent to nor necessarily inferre that the Pope hath neither power to depose the King nor to dispose of any his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions nor to doe any other of those things there mentioned and therefore he that granteth that the Pope hath power to doe any one of those things there mentioned must consequently graunt that the whole or entire oath or proposition consisting of all those particular clauses is false 82 But in the oath inuented by my Aduersary although indeed by vertue of the matter we may well conclude that the Pope hath neither power to depose the Kinge nor to dispose of any his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions nor to doe any other of those thinges there mentioned for that all and euery one of those thinges which are denied to the Pope in that totall oath or proposition may also be denied to him in seuerall oaths or propositions yet hy vertue of the words and from the force and signification of the disiunctiue coniunction or which as M. Fitzherbert himselfe doth grant maketh there a conditionall disiumctiue proposition implying a free choise to take which part of the disiunction we please we cannot rightly conclude that the Pope hath neither power to depose the King nor to dispose of any his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions c. 83 For what man can be so ignorant as to imagine that these two propositions make the same sense or that the first doth rightly inferre the second It is false that it is in my free and lawfull power to doe this or that therefore it is true that I may lawfully neither doe this nor that My Aduersary can not deny but that it is false that he had lawfull freedome to deale sincerely or corruptly in this his Reply therefore by his owne manner of arguing he must grant that it is true that he had lawfull freedome neither to deale sincerely nor corruptly in his Reply Likewise he cannot deny but that it is false that it is in the free and lawfull power of creatures to honour or blaspheme God of Priests to eate or sleepe before they say Masse of Souldiers to fight or fly when their Country is inuaded by the enemie and to exemplifie in our owne matter of the Pope to depose or murther Princes as murther is taken for an vnlawfull Act Will he therefore inferre from thence in that manner as he argueth here that it is therefore true that creatures may lawfully neither honour nor blaspheme God that Priests may lawfully neither eate nor sleepe before they say Masse that Soldiers may lawfully neither fight nor flye when their Country is inuaded and that the Pope may lawfully neither depose Princes nor murther them as murther is taken for an vnlawful act Wherfore if my Aduersary will but keepe still the same forme and the same disiunctiue coniunction or and alter but a little the matter by adding onely to the end of the affirmatiue oath framed by himselfe this clause or to murther his Maiesty he will quickly perceiue his error and he will not deny but that the oath with that addition is very false and neuerthelesse he dare not from thence conclude the truth of the negatiue or that therefore it is true that the Pope hath not any power neither to depose the King nor to dispose c. for that he granteth that the Pope hath lawfull power to depose the King and to dispose c. onely he denyeth that the Pope hath power to murther him as murther is taken for an vnlawfull act 84. But the causes of M. Fitzherberts errour are manifest First for that he for want of Logike doth not as it seemes consider the difference betwixt the forme and the matter of an hypothiticall proposition and what is required to the truth or falshood of a disiunctiue or copulatiue proposition as well by vertue of the forme as of the matter For to make a pure or absolute disiunctiue proposition to be true it is sufficient by vertue of the forme that one part of the disiunction be true but to make it false both parts must be false Contrariwise it falleth out in a copulatiue proposition for to make it true both parts of the copulation must be true and to make it false it sâ—fficeth by vertue of the forme or by force of the copulatiue coniunction that one onely part be false although by reason of the matter both parts also may be false but this is impertinent to the forme Secondly he doth not consider that a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a free choise to take which part of the disiunction we please followeth the nature of a copulatiue and not of a pure common or absolute disiunctiue proposition Thirdly he doth not consider that whatsoeuer is taken or to vse the Logicians phrase supposeth distributiuely as euery negation doth distribute and deny whatsoeuer followeth that negation is to be resolued by a copulatiue and not by a disiunctiue coniunction 85. Fourthly he doth not consider that to make a copulatiue proposition or such a disiunctiue which is equiualent to a copulatiue to be hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part be hereticall Fiftly he doth not consider that although to make a pure common or absolute disiunctiue proposition to be false it is necessary that both parts of the disiunction be false yet it is not necessary that both parts be false in the same degree of falshood for that the one part may be impossible the other not the one part hereticall and the other not and that therefore the same kinde of falshood which is affirmed of the one part is not necessarily affirmed of the other Lastly he doth not consider how vicious a kinde of arguing it is from the falshood of an affirmatiue conditionall disiunctiue proposition to conclude the truth of a negatiue whereby he would make his affirmatiue oath inuented by himselfe to haue the same sense with the negatiue oath prescribed by his Maiesty And his ignorance herein is the lesse excusable for that the insufficiencie of this his argument he might haue seene declared in my Theologicall disputation where I clearely shewed as you haue seene before how vnsoundly the Author of that English Dialogue vrged the like argument which my answere to that argument is also here altogether concealed by M. Fitzherbert And therefore I will giue him this charitable aduise that if he haue any care of his credit and