that the Pope hath no such authoritie Must the opinion of Card Bellarmine or of Suarez or of any other learned Catholike be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith All Catholikes doe confesse that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Christian King and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature and by the institution of Christ doth forbid but to absolue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication which being a spirituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect or by the sentence of depriuation this many learned Catholikes with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde or loose 16 True also it is that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church but these keyes are spirituall not temporall of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of temporall but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings as I haue often shewed neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegiance or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues libertie kingdomes or goods as by some Catholikes of these latter ages contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church they haue been violently wrested To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. I answer saith Ioannes Parisiensis according to S. Chrysostome Rabanus that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall to wit to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance 16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against those authorities which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation Now let any indifferent Reader iudge whether he hath sufficiently answered those authorities or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off and whether Mr. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly that D. Schulckenius to whom he cunningly also as you haue seene remitteth his English Reader for his answer to those authorities hath answered particularly to euerie one of them and prooued cleerely that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else heretikes as appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowen Schismatikes who liuing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauours of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so that of all the Authours that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same which how true it is or rather most cleerely false I remit to the consideration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader 17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius a learned and vertuous Catholike who expressely affirmeth that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no partly hee reiecteth partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers Grammarians Poets as Sigebert Valla Dante 's who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines and partly to repell his testimonie he falsely grossely and vnaduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to Posseuine who as you haue seene both in that and also other points of historie hath shamefully erred himselfe and neuerthelesse that which Trithemius affirmeth Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine and classicall Doctour of Paris who liued also in those daies confirmeth to be true whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all Albericus a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law for that hee deliuereth his opinion with submission is ready to recal it if it should prooue erroneous as euery good Catholike ought to doe he will haue to speake wauering and altogether doubtfull Ioannes Parisiensis a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point which I contend to prooue and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him without sufficient ground of many errours which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes The testimony of Mr. D. Barclay a famous learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike To M. Blackwell and those other English Priests he answereth nothing The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such particular circumstances that no man can misdoubt of them for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredible The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posseuines confession affirming that France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reieiecteth which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed And if this manner of answering authorities is to bee admitted who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer especially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie and to depresse their aduersaries and who shall seeme to make against them whether they be liuing or dead euen to the pit of hell appeaching them of heresie errour schisme and such like hainous crimes 18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apologie which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute whereof some of them doe expressely affirme that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall and not a temporall sword Others that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God and to bee punished with temporall punishments by God alone and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall Others that neither Childerike was deposed nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graecians
mysticall bodie of Christ and the spirituall Kingdome of Christ are altogether the same of which common-wealth Kings with Laikes Bishops with Clerks are parts as oftentimes hath beene sayd In which Christian com-wealth and mysticall body and Kingdome of Christ all things are so well disposed and ordered that temporall things doe serue spirituall and ciuill power is subiect to Ecclesiasticall which conclusion my Aduersarie Widdrington hath many waies attempted to ouerthrow but he was not able And he was not able not onely to ouerthrow the conclusion but also he hath not beene able to weaken at all with any probable answer the first argument which Card. Bellarmine brought to prooue this conclusion which the Readers will easily perceiue if without perturbation of minde they will consider that which hath beene sayd by vs. 24 But this Reply of D. Schulckenius is as fraudulent and insufficient as the former for in effect it is only a repetition of his former Reply to which I haue already answered besides some fraudulent dealing which he hath vsed herein And first it is very true that I granted the antecedent proposition of this second Reply of Card. Bellarmine but that all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist in the antecedent proposition or assumption as D. Schulckenius affirmeth is very vntrue and I wonder that D. Schulckenius is not ashamed with such boldnesse to affirme the same The Antecedent proposition was that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporal gouernment if it hurt the spirituall good not onely of his owne Subiects but also of the Subiects of other Christian Princes and this proposition I did willingly grant him but the force of his argument did not consist only in this antecedent proposition as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth but in the consequence which hee inferred from this antecedent proposition or if wee will reduce his argument to a syllogisticall forme in his Minor proposition or assumption which was this but of this to wit that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment in the case aforesaid no other reason can be giuen but that both powers are members of the same body and one power or body subiect to the other And this consequence assumption or Minor proposition wherein the whole force of his argument did consist I vtterly denyed and I alledged as you haue seene an other plaine and perspicuous reason why a Christian Prince in the case aforesaid is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment to wit not for that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or for that they make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power but for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are parts and members not onely of the temporall but also of the spiritual common-wealth for which cause a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it is hurtfull to the spirituall good of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof he is a true part and member as I declared before 25. Secondly it is very vntrue that I doe any waie contradict my selfe as D. Schulckenius affirmeth first in denying that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them are parts of one and the selfe-same Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ and afterwards in granting that temporall Kings and their subiects are members of the same spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For these propositions temporall power is not per se subiect to spirituall power and temporall Princes are subiect to spirituall power are not repugnant or contradictorie one to the other as neither these propositions are contradictory Temporall power and spirituall power are not parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and temporall Princes are parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For contradiction according to Aristotle n Lib. 1. de Interp. cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the same thing and in the same manner But there is no man so ignorant that will affirme that the same thing and in the same manner is affirmed and denied in the aforesaid propositions for the subiect of the first propositions is temporall power in abstracto and it is taken formally and in the second propositions it is temporall power in concreto and it is taken onely materially and hath this sense that temporall Princes who haue both temporall power and also spirituall subiection are indeed subiect to the spirituall power and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power but onely materially who haue temporall power but formally as they haue spiritual subiection But D. Schulckenius doth manifestly contradict himselfe as I plainely shewed before o Cap. 2. first affirming That the Church of Christ is compounded of temporall and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers as he himselfe also confesseth and afterwards in denying that it is compounded of temporall or ciuill power which is formally ciuill 26. But marke now good Reader what fraude D. Schulckenius vseth in prouing that I doe manifestly contradict my selfe He would seeme to his Reader to proue that I affirme and deny one and the selfe same thing for this he taketh vpon him to proue and yet he proueth nothing else but that which I haue alwaies affirmed and neuer denied to wit that Christian Kings and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to the spirituall power thereof but the contradiction which hee pretended to proue he doth not proue at all nor make any shew of proofe thereof to wit that it is all one to say that Christian Princes and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to her spirituall power which I alwaies granted and that the temporall and spirituall power doe compound the Church or that the temporall power it selfe is per se subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which I euer denied and out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds haue cleerely proued the contrary and haue plainely shewed that temporall power doth only compound a temporall or ciuill body or common-wealth whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius doth heere expresly affirme and that the Church of Christ his mysticall body and spirituall Kingdome or Christian common-wealth taking the Christian common-wealth for the Church onely and not for the Christian world as it containeth temporall and spirituall power is compounded onely of spirituall and not of temporall power In which Church of Christ and also Christian world all things are so well ordered and disposed that temporall things ought by the intention of good Christians to serue spirituall things and temporall Princes although in spiritualls they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church yet in temporalls or as they haue temporall power they are not subiect but supreame and consequently the
argument therfore I will set downe word by word only turning his speech to the Priests which he applieth to the Kings Maiestie 8 For to take away all manner of euasion saith Suarez d In Desens lib. 6. cap. 3. I demand whether those Priests doe vnderstand that the sentence of the Pope deposing a baptized Queene for crimes may be iust or they beleeue that it is alwaies vniust The first they will not in my opinion affirme for otherwise they should promise a most wicked thing to wit not to obey a iust sentence which implieth in it a iust command For if the sentence bee iust the command also which enioyneth subiects to obserue it must also be iust seeing that otherwise it cannot be put in execution Also if the sentence of deposition denounced against a Queene may bee iust it will also be effectuall therefore it hath the effect of that punishment which it imposeth Wherefore seeing that the punishment imposed by the sentence of deposition from her Kingdome is to depriue her actually or effectually of her dominion and propertie to her Kingdome a iust sentence doth effectually depriue her of her Kingdome therefore it is against iustice and obedience due vnto the Pope to resist that sentence and to defend the Queenes person against the execution of that sentence therefore hee that beleeueth the first and neuerthelesse promiseth this second doth promise a thing cleerly vniust and wicked 9 And besides it implieth a contradiction to be willing to yeeld obedience and allegeance as thinking thy selfe bound so to doe to one whom thou knowest to be by a iust declaration and sentence effectually deposed from her Kingdome As if the Pope himselfe should exact of Christians a promise that notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of deposing him for any crime euen for heresie denounced by whatsoeuer generall Councell they will defend him in his See and will yeelde him the same obedience and allegeance their promise were wicked for that it were a wicked thing and against the Church Faith Such therfore is the promise of those Priests if the aforesaid sentence against the Queene bee supposed to bee iust This therefore those Priests without doubt will not admit neither also are they as I thinke so inconsiderate of their affaires that if they grant the Popes sentence denounced against a Queene may be iust neuerthelesse they will deny that against the Queene of England it may haue the same iustice For what greater immunitie or innocencie can they alledge in the Queene of England then in other Princes who haue beene rebells to the Romane Church or forsakers and impugners of the faith Or although they do not acknowledge that the Queene for that time had not committed any thing worthy of deposition how doe they know that for the time to come she cannot and yet their promise is absolute notwithstanding any authoritie or any sentence of Excommunication denounced or to be denounced against the Queene or euery one borne within her Maiesties Dominions c. Wherefore there is no doubt but that the ground of this promise and profession is that such a sentence cannot bee iust Wherefore from hence we euidently conclude that those Priests by the aforesaid words do professe that the sentence of deposition against the Queene can neither be valid nor iust For in very deede this they doe professe when they promise not to obey nor to obserue such a sentence 10. Whereupon we do moreouer conclude that those Priests doe professe that the Pope hath not power to denounce such a sentence seeing that for no other cause they doe beleiue the sentence to be vniust but for that it is giuen without power and Iurisdiction in the Pope to depose a Queene Neither can those Priests alledge in such a sentence any other cause of iniustice which is perpetuall and may be a ground of this part of their profession for their profession doth not speake of a sentence alreadie denounced but absolutely of a sentence denounced or to be denounced against the Queene therfore it doth comprehend euery sentence whether it bee giuen the partie being heard or not heard whether for disagreement in religion or for any other crime or cause whatsoeuer Wherefore the iniustice which those Priests do suppose to bee in that sentence and wherupon they ground their profession is no other but for that they beleeue that it cannot proceede from a lawfull power and Iurisdiction And therefore I conclude that they professe that the Pope hath not power and Iurisdiction to giue a sentence of deposition against the Queene for any cause Thus argueth Father Suarez So that it is euident that those thirteene reuerend Priests must of necessitie suppose if they will haue their protestation and promise to be iust and lawfull that the Pope hath no power to depriued Princes of their Regall right and authoritie 11. And by this fift testimonie it is also apparant that not only M. Doctour Barclay and Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Sculckenius against me vntruely affirmeth but many other English Catholikes to omit those other learned Catholikes of other Countries of whom I haue spoken before and the Kingdome and State of France of which I will speake beneath g In the next Chapter are of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions Which also may moreouer be confirmed by the petition which some English Catholikes did exhibite to Queene Elizabeth deceased after the discouerie of Parries conspiracie wherein these expresse wordes are contained In consideration of all which necessarie points we doe protest before the true liuing God that all and euery Priest and Priests who haue at any time conuersed with vs haue recognized your Maiestie their vndoubted and lawfull Queene tam de iure quam de facto who neuerthelesse was at that time and long before depriued of her Princely power right and dignitie by the publike sentence of Pope Pius the fift 12. And to these authorities we may add the testimonies set downe in the end of Mr. Blackwells Latine examination of Bishop Watson Abbot Fernam Doctor Cole Iohn Harpesfield and Nicolas Harpesfield all of them very famous and learned Catholikes who vpon the publishing of the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth being examined by the Magistrate in the yeare 1578. and demanded whether notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence of the Pope denounced or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene they did thinke that shee was their true and lawfull Queene and that they and all other English and Irish men did as Subiects owe to her Maiesty obedience faith and loyaltie as to their lawfull and true Queene and Soueraigne Prince they did all with vniforme consent acknowledge and confesse that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence or declaration of the Pope already denounced or hereafter to be denounced
Cleargie men and especially the Pope from subiection to temporall Princes But the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is whether this manner of vnion and coniunction of these two powers or subiections in the same Christian man be sufficient to make the whole Christian world to be formally one complete and totall body or common wealth consisting of spirituall and temporall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head or else notwithstanding the aforesaid vnion and coniunction the temporall and spirituall common wealth among Christians doe still remaine formally two totall and complete bodies or common wealths the one consisting onely of spirituall and the other only of temporall power although materially and accidentally vnited in one subiect in that manner as I haue now declared 4. Thirdly I doe also make no question but that as the world containing both Christians and infidels and therefore consisting of spirituall and temporall power may be called one complete and totall body or kingdome whereof God onely is the chiefe head and King although in the same totall body or kingdome but not of the same totall body or Kingdome there be many supreme visible heads and Gouernours and consequently being supreme they doe not depend one of the other in so much that neither the temporall power of Infidell Princes is subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope nor the spirituall power of the Pope is subiect to the temporall power of Infidell Princes but both of them are subiect immediately to God alone the inuisible head and King of them both in regard of whom they make one totall body or kingdome although the temporall power alone being compared to the uisible heads on earth doth actually make diuerse totall and complete earthly kingdomes So also I make no question but that the whole Christian world consisting of temporall and spirituall power being compared to Christ the invisible head thereof who at least wise as he is God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords both temporall and spirituall doth make one totall bodie Kingdom or Common-wealth contayning in it both the earthly kingdomes of Christians and the spirituall kingdome of Christ neither of this can there in my iudgement be made any question 5 But the question betwixt me and Card Bellarmine is whether the temporall spirituall power among Christians or the Christian world consisting of both powers not as they are referred to Christ who at least wise as he is God is the invisible head of both powers I say at least wise as he is God for that it is a controuersie betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether Christ as man be only a spirituall or also a temporall King but as they haue relation to their visible heads here on earth doe make one totall and compleat bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and Christian Kings are not supreme but depending on him not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls or whether the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe truly properly and formally make two entire and complete bodies Kingdoms or Common-wealths to wit the earthly kingdoms of this Christian world consisting only of temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the supreme visible heads and therefore in temporalls subiect to no other visible head here on earth and the spirituall kingdom and mysticall body of Christ consisting onely of spirituall power whereof the Pope onely is the supreme visible head Prince and Pastour and consequently in spiritualls subiect to no other visible head or Superiour on earth This is the true state of the question 6 Concerning which question there is a great controuersie betwixt the Canonists and Diuines For the Canonists supposing Christ our Sauiour to bee not onely a spirituall but also a temporall King and to haue directly and properly both temporall and spirituall power ouer the whole world and that hee gaue this power to his Generall Vicar here on earth S. Peter and his Successors doe consequently affirme that the whole world but especially which is Christian consisting of spirituall and temporall power doth make one entire or totall body whereof the Pope being by the institution of Christ not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch is the supreme visible head to whom all Princes especially who are Christians are subiect not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls But contrariwise the Diuines who doe hold that Christ as man was not a temporall but only a spirituall King and although hee had directly both temporall and spirituall power yet that he gaue to S. Peter and his Successors onely the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes and only spirituall not temporall authoritie are consequently bound to maintaine that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to the visible heads here on earth doe not truly properly and formally make one totall and entire body or kingdome whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head but two totall and entire bodies or kingdomes but vnited in subiect as I declared before to wit earthly kingdomes consisting only of temporall authoritie whereof temporall Princes only are the supreme visible heads and the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ consisting only of spirituall power whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head Prince and Pastour 7 Now what is the opinion of Card Bellarmine touching this point for that he speaketh so contrarie to his owne principles truly I can not tell For although he adhereth to the Diuines and impugneth the Canonists in that they hold the Pope to be not only a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch of the world and to haue directly power in temporalls yet contrarie to this his doctrine as you shall see in the next chapter he doth in expresse words whatsoeuer his meaning is affirme that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall and entire bodie Familie Cittie Kingdome or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head yea he is so confident in this his assertion that he feareth not to auerre d in his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. that it is against the Catholike faith to say that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power are not parts of one and the same Common-wealth but that they make altogether two common-wealths vnlesse this distinction and explication be added to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe make one totall common-wealth which e Cap. 7. p. 287. pag. 340. afterwards he calleth the familie cittie Kingdome mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and two partiall which are indeed distinct by acts offices dignities and ends but connected betweene themselues and one subordained to the other But how weakely and contrarie to his owne principles Card Bellarmine proueth this vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power you shall forthwith perceiue Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the authoritie of S. Paul
also as it is ciuill is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Thirdly saith he a Lib. 5. de Rom Pont. cap 7. if the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince according to the opinion of all men is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall 2 Neither doth he satisfie that should answer that a Prince is bound to change that manner of his gouernment not for the subordination to the spirituall power but onely for order of charitie by which wee are bound to preferre greater goods before losser For in regard of the order of charitie one common-wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common-wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment And one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth is not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble Seeing therefore that the temporall common-wealth is bound to suffer detriment for the spiritual common-weatlh it is a signe that they are not two diuerse common-wealths but parts of one and the same common-wealth and one subiect to the other 3. Neither also is it of force if one should say that a temporall Prince is bound to suffer detriment for the spirituall good not in regard of any subiection of the temporall commonwealth to the spirituall common wealth but because otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose spiritualls for temporalls For although those men who are not his subiects but are of an other kingdome should suffer any notable hurt in spiritualls for the gouernment in temporalls of some Christian King he is bound to change his manner of gouernment whereof no other reason can be giuen but that they are members of the same body and one subiect to the other 4. By this argument Card. Bellarmine as you see laboureth to proue two things the one is that not only Lay-men and Cleargie-men doe make one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for of this no Catholike maketh any doubt but also that the temporall spirituall power themselues or which is all one the temporall and spirituall common wealth as they consist of temporall and spirituall power are parts or this totall body called the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head The second is that not only temporall Princes are in spirituals subiect to the supreme spirituall Pastour but also that the temporall power itselfe as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and consequently that temporall Princes not onely in spiritualls but also in all temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power But neither of these can bee rightly concluded from this argument as I shewed in my Apologie b Num. 160. seq where I denied the consequence of this third argument speaking of subiection and subordination per se and of it owne nature For if temporall gouernment doe hinder spirituall good the temporall Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with detriment of temporall good not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as though of the temporall and spirituall power were made formally one politike body but for both the reasons alledged by Card. Bellarmine which he did not sufficiently confute in his Replyes 5. The first reason is for the order of charitie by which we are bound to prefer greater goods before lesser To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrarie I answered thus that although for the order of charity one common wealth is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common wealth more noble doe not suffer the like detriment yet in case that both common wealths bee subiect to one Prince or that the Prince of the lesse noble coÌ„mon wealth be also a subiect of the more noble then that Prince is bound for order of charitie all other things being alike to preferre the more noble common-wealth before the lesse noble And although one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of his owne common-wealth bee not bound to doe the like for an other common-wealth although the more noble yet in case that the same priuate man should at the same time bee a Citizen of both common-wealths if he be bound to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the lesse noble common wealth whereof he is a Citizen he is much more bound for the same order of charitie to giue all his goods for the conseruation of the more noble common wealth to which also he is subiect And this is the very case in this present question For the spirituall and ciuill power and the common wealths which they compound are so vnited and connected among Christians that euery Christian is a Citizen of both common wealths and both common wealths may be subiect to the same Prince as appeareth in the Pope who is the spirituall Prince or Pastour of the whole Christian world and also a temporall Prince of some Prouinces thereof 6. The second reason for which a temporall Prince is bound to change the manner of his gouernment in the aforesaid case is for that otherwise he should hurt his subiects to whom it is hurtfull to loose greater goods for the lesser that is spirituall goods for temporall To the Reply which Card. Bellarmine made to the contrary I answered that the reason wherefore a temporall Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment if it be greatly hurtfull to the spirituall good not only of his owne subiects but also of the subiects of another Kingdome is not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall or for that both of them are parts of one and the same totall common wealth but because both the King and also those subiects of an other temporall kingdome are also members of the same mysticall body of Christ and Cittizens of the same spirituall Kingdome and therefore that King least that he should greatly preiudice in spiritualls the kingdome of Christ whereof he is a Citizen by his temporall gouernment is bound to change that manner of gouernment Thus I answered in my Apologie 7. Now you shall see how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift of this answere To the first part of my answere he replyeth thus c Pag. 339. Hâ—ere I see nothing that needeth any answere sauing that as though of the temporall and spirituall power were formally made one politike body For my Aduersary Widdrington doth grant the antecedent of Card. Bellarmines argument and denieth the consequence and for this cause he doth deny it for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made