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
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
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
innocencie by answering all his obiections and by clearing my selfe of all those imputations which hee hath falsly laid to my charge and if in defending my selfe I lay open his fraude and ignorance and returne his slanders backe vpon himselfe I ought not therefore to be taxed of calumniation seeing that to detect the slanders of the Aduersarie is not d Cap. 5. Apologiae to vse Card. Bellarmines owne words to be accounted a defaming Now to draw neere vnto the matter 4. Before my Aduersarie come to examine my Answere to his arguments he thinketh it not amisse to say somewhat concerning me the matter which I handle and the manner how I proceede therein First then touching me he affirmeth e In his Preface num 3. that whereas I call my selfe by the name of Widdrington it is well knowne to many that M. Roger Widdrington vnder whose shaddow I shroude my selfe is farre different from me in qualitie habit and profession And albeit f Num. 3. he is not ignorant what my true name and qualitie is yet he forbeareth to declare it for iust respects and will only say of me for the present that whereas our Aduersaries haue heretofore leuied and Prest many souldiers of their owne profession to maintaine their quarrells against vs they haue now in this late quarrell of the oath Prest one of ours I meane saith he this Authour who so much presumeth of his owne skill and strength that albeit the prouerbe saith Ne Hercules contra duos yet he feareth not to encounter tenne at once yea hopeth as it seemeth to wrest the club out of Hercules his hand and to beate him with his owne weapon For he taketh vpon him to ouerthrow Card. Bellarmine with his owne arguments to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions c. 5. But first whether Roger Widdrington be the true or supposed the sole or ioint Authour of that Disputation it little auaileth to the matter which is now in controuersie and when my Aduersarie shall name more plainely that person whom he forbearing as he saith to name yet cunningly nameth I doubt not but that hee will not be afraid to answere him more fully neither will all my Aduersaries clamours and threatnings discourage him from defending the truth his Prince and Countrey for the loue wherof not for any hope of temporall lucre or preferment or for to shew his wit as my Aduersary falsly affirmeth he will not be ashamed to be Prest on to write against Mr. Fitzherbert or any other such like Authour who liuing in other Countries and out of danger to loose any thing but rather in hope to obtaine preferment by their writings would presse English Catholikes to defend with danger of loosing all they haue and of incurring his Maiesties high displeasuer that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith which the State of France hath accounted scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious In the meane time let this suffice that he is a childe of the Catholike Romane Church and as good a Catholike if not better then Mr. Fitzherbert is if we will dulie consider the true nature and definition of a Catholike and that he is no true Catholike who with true Catholike and supernaturall faith beleeueth doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions and which consequently are subiect to errour to which true Catholike faith cannot in any wise be exposed 6. Secondly it is vntrue that I doe presume so much of my owne skill and strength that I dare aduenture to wrest out the club of Hercules his hand as my Aduersarie affirmeth or to encounter vpon equall tearmes with Card. Bellarmine or any one of those learned writers whom I named in my Disputation accounting my selfe to be farre inferior to euery one of them in skill and strength only excepting this my Aduersarie whose skill and strength I doe not greatly feare it being well knowne of what sufficiencie he is and that his skill in Philosophie or Schoole Diuinitie is not great although he hath prettie skill in making vse of other mens labours and answering in English what other men haue before replied in Latine but if Hercules will leaue his club and fight with a bulrush it is no great maistrie for a weaker man to withstand him if Card. Bellarmine insteed of the expresse words of holy Scripture and the true meaning thereof so declared to be by the ancient Fathers or the vniuersall Church or vndoubted definitions of Generall Councels or necessarie inferences deducted from them which are the only weapons wherewith Catholike doctrine can be conuinced will flie to ouer wrested similitudes false or at the most probable suppositions doubtfull and vncertaine collections to proue an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith as he and the rest who follow him in this controuersie for the Popes power to depose Princes haue done it is an easie matter for one who hath lesse skill and strength then they haue to withstand them yea and to vanquish them and a hundred such others being so weakely armed 7. And therefore very false and friuolous is that which my Aduersarie affirmeth g Num 4. and 5. that Widdrington for so still I will call my selfe taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such art and sleight that whiles he fighteth against the Church he pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authority yet he dedicateth his booke to the Pope laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did But how vainely he laboureth in all this he may easily see if he call to minde what he hath learned in the Catholike Chucrch to wit how inexpugnable is the rocke and seate of Peter which the proud gates of hell cannot ouercome For I doe not batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church whom I reuerence and loue as my deare mother and to whose Censure I euer haue and do also now most humbly submit my selfe and all my writings but the priuate opinions of some few Catholikes especially Iesuites who will needes enforce vpon the Christian world doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of supernaturall faith which onely is the fortresse of the Catholike Church Neither doe I vndermine that immoueable rocke of S. Peter whereon Christ hath built his Church but those scandalous seditious damnable and pernitious positions for so the State of France doth call them of murthering Princes and thrusting them out contrarie to the rules of law and reason of the lawfull possession of their kingdomes by an authority which is only doubfull and questionable Neither do I impugne that authoritie of the Pope which is certainely knowne to be granted him by Christ but that new doctrine of some few writers
which doth attribute to the Pope that authoritie as certainly giuen him by Christ which at the most is disputable whether Christ hath giuen it him or no. 8. I do honour and reuerence in good truth Card. Bellarmine as also many other learned men of his Society and their singular learning I doe greatly admire but that their learning or authoritie ought to be so greatly esteemed of by Catholikes that whatsoeuer they thinke to be a point of faith it is presently to bee taken for a diuine Oracle and the contrarie opinion of other learned Catholikes who haue seene and examined all their grounds reasons and authorities is not to be accounted an opinion but an heresie and that in a matter of such importance which concerneth the dutifull obedience of euery Christian to God and Caesar this is that which I cannot take in good part And might not I pray you the Canonists who do vehemently defend the Popes direct power to dispose of all temporalls against Card. Bellarmine and others whom they are not afraide to call impios politicos wicked politicians h Alexander Carerius pretending thereby to strengthen the fortresse of the Catholike Church to confirme the immoueable rocke of S. Peter and to maintaine the Popes authoritie retort the very same inuectiue which my Aduersarie hath borrowed of Card. Bellarmine i Against Barclay cap. 1. and in the Epistle Dedicatory of his Schulckenius against me vpon Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doth vehemently impugne the aforesaid direct authoritie which the Canonists do yeelde vnto the Pope and with the same facilitie crie out with my Aduersary that he taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such Art and sleigth that whiles he fighteth against the Church hee pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authoritie yet he dedicateth his booke to Pope Sixtus the fift laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did c. And thus much concerning me 9. Now as touching the matter which I handle and the manner of my proceeding therein k Num. 6. Widdringtons speciall purpose saith my Aduersarie in this his late worke is to defend the new oath of allegiance and to confute all the chiefe arguments that haue beene made by any against the seuerall clauses thereof which neuerthelesse he meaneth no other waies to performe as he himselfe often protesteth but only by shewing probably that the said Oath may be taken by Catholikes and that nothing hath beene hitherto or can be obiected against it which hath not been or cannot be probably answered And from hence my Aduersary gathereth certaine admonitions to the Reader which as he saith are worthy to be noted 10. But before I come to set downe his worthy admonitions I thinke it fit to put thee in remembrance Curteous Reader what is the true state of the question betwixt vs concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and what was my chiefe intent in making that disputation of the Oath The maine question therefore betwixt me and these my Aduersaries as my Aduersarie T. F. also confesseth l In the end of his Preface is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which specially is denied in this new oath to wit whether it be a point of faith and not to be denied by any Catholike without note of heresie or errour that the Pope hath by Christ his institution power to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes for any crime whatsoeuer For whereas some very few late writers especially Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuites could not bee content to defend this doctrine for the Popes power call it temporall or spirituall as you will to depose Princes in a moderate manner but would needes take vpon them to make it a point of the Catholike faith and cleerely to demonstrate by the testimonie of holy Scriptures of sacred Councells and by inuincible reasons that Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successors such a temporall power ouer Soueraigne Kings and Princes a doctrine neither practised nor knowne by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and which hath beene a chiefe occasion why this Kingdome is departed from the obedience to the See Apostolike and to condemne all those Catholikes of heresie who do not runne with them in this their violent course when I seriously considered with my selfe what scandall this new doctrine maintained with such violence brought to Catholike Religion what danger to our Prince and Countrey and what great calamities and disgrace English Catholikes do daily suffer thereby as not being accounted true and loyall Subiects to their Prince euen according to the doctrine of those who are esteemed to bee the chiefe pillars of the Catholike Church but so long only as it shall please the Pope I thought my selfe bound by the duty which I do owe to the Catholike Religion to my Prince Country to take away as much as lieth in mee notwithstanding the manifold slaunders which I fore-saw some persons would therefore raise against mee the aforesaid scandals dangers and disgraces and to answer probably all the arguments which Card. Bellarmine hath from the chiefest Authors who haue handled this question collected to demonstrate that it is a certaine and infallible doctrine and the contrary not so much an opinion as an heresie that the Pope hath by Christ his institution authority to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions 11 Wherefore the present controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries is not at this time concerning the absolute proposition to wit whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose the reason why I doe not dispute of this absolute proposition I will declare beneath m Num. 78.79 but concerning the modall whether it be certaine without controuersie and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose as this Author T. F. following Card. Bellarmine and some few Iesuites will needes haue it to be and I with other Catholikes and the Kingdome of France as Petrus Pithaeus witnesseth n In Cod. libert Eccles Galliâ— doe vtterly deny the same And from hence it euidently followeth that although Card. Bellarmine should alledge an hundred Catholike Authors who doe affirme that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet if they doe not also affirme that it is certaine and to be beleeued as a point of faith that the Pope hath such a power they neither confirme his opinion nor gaine-say mine concerning the present controuersie which is now in hand And thus much concerning the matter and manner of my Apologie for the right of Princes Now touching my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegeance although in very deede hitherto I haue not seene any sufficient reason to condemne the sayd oath as vnlawfull and
declaration of the law to which he may by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell the faithfull But in cases not of necessitie but of some speciall vtilitie or when it is not apparant that the goods of Lay-men doe helpe such vtilitie or necessitie the Pope hath not authoritie to compell any man but concerning this hee may giue indulgences for giuing aide to the faithfull and no other thing is granted him in my opinion Thus writeth Parisiensis wherefore in his opinion the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Lay-man of his goods or any part thereof euen in necessitie of faith and manners but onely to declare that he is bound by the law of God to giue such part of his goods as the necessitie of the Church shall require which if he neglect to doe the Pope hath no other authoritie to compell him therevnto then by Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the last punishments which the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can inflict 4 In the very like manner Parisiensis discourseth of the disposing of Kingdomes and of deposing temporall Princes as I before related out of him For first he affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose a King iuridically or which is all one to depriue him by a iuridicall sentence of his right to reigne and secondly that the people or temporall common-wealth may and in some exorbitant cases are bound to depose their Prince and so the Pope not by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation but by declaring what the people are by the law of God bound to doe and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compelling them therevnto may according to Parisiensis concurre to the deposing of a Prince by meanes of the people which if the people notwithstanding the Popes Censures neglect to doe the Pope hath no further power to depose him for that Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to him the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict 5 Wherefore two things are affirmed by Parisiensis the one that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes immediately by his sentence of their Princely power and this is that only which is in controuersie betwixt mee and Card Bellarmine the other that the people or temporall common-wealth haue that authoritie in some exorbitant cases and this is only a philosophicall question and wherewith I would neuer intermeddle as being impertinent to the question concerning the Popes authoritie to depriue him And although many Catholike Doctors doe agree with Parisiensis in this point yet many other learned Catholikes whom I cited in my Apologie l Num. 411. doe dissent from him herein to which opinion doe incline very many of the ancient Fathers who expounding those words of the King and Prophet m Psal 50. I haue sinned to thee alone doe affirme that Soueraigne Princes for that they are inferiour to God alone to wit in temporalls can be punished with temporall punishments by God alone And therefore D. Schulckenius may be greatly ashamed to affirme so boldly that Parisiensis doth not make for my opinion and that it doth not appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope may depose Princes immediately by his sentence or by meanes of the people seeing that the onely question betwixt vs is whether the Pope hath power to depriue Princes of their Royall power immediately by his sentence and not what authoritie the common-wealth hath to depriue them 6 But D. Schulckenius perceiuing that this his answer to the authoritie of Parisiensis was but a meere shift and euasion hath reserued but not in this place another answer whereby he imagined to cleane ouerthrow the authority of this famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine For hee beneath n Pag. 394. ad num 201. replying to the answer which I made to those words of S. Bernard vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentas c. wherof beneath o Part. 2. ca. 9. I will treate more at large in confirmation of which my answer I cited the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis D. Schulckenius writeth thus There is no great regard to bee had of the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis whatsoeuer he saith for that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and also in the 14. chapter of the same Treatise hee mingleth many errours The like answer but more biting maketh Fa Lessius in his Singleton It is to little purpose saith he p Pag. 29. what Ioannes Parisiensis doth say because he alledgeth very many other false citations and histories as being a Schismatike Another censure but more temperate Card. Bellarmine giueth of him in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers Ioannnes Parisiensis saith he q Pag. 380. of the Order of the Preachers was famous about the yeere 1296. Hee wrote vpon the foure bookes of the sentences and diuerse Quodlibets but especially of Kingly and Papall power and because it was his happe to liue in trouble sometimes by reason of the discord betweene Pope Boniface the eight and Philip the faire King of France and hee liued and taught at Paris hee seemeth to be more inclined towards the King then the Pope 5 But truely it is strange that men of such singular learning and religious profession should so rashly and without sufficient grounds be so transported as contrarie to the rules of Christian Charitie and Iustice to defame and slaunder learned and vertuous men and those especially who beeing dead cannot defend themselues For first it is an apparant and too too manifest slander which Fa Lessius speaking with all dutifull respect to his reuerence doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis was a Schismatike neither can he out of any approoued Authour or by any probable reason prooue any such thing and therfore what great account hee hath to make at the dreadfull day of iudgement for vniustly taking away as much as lieth in him the good name of so famous a man and in so fowle and hainous a crime as Schisme is I remit to the examination of his owne conscience Besides that Parisiensis mingleth many errours in the 14. chapter of his Kingly and Papall power as D. Schulckenius affirmeth and that he alledgeth many false citations and histories as Fa Lessius saith is also vntrue and it had beene fitting for them to haue alledged some one of them that thereby some credit might haue beene giuen them for the rest Vnlesse whatsoeuer is not agreeable to D. Schulckenius his doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine must bee accounted an errour and whatsoeuer Fa. Lessius hath not seeene or read must be esteemed a false citation or historie True it is that Parisiensis in that 14. chapter doth teach that the Pope cannot iudge of temporall causes but in regard of the sinne and that hee cannot depose Princes by his sentence and that the last punishment which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict are spirituall and Ecclesiasticall
against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
the priueledge it selfe is named King at whose instance S. Gregorie saith he granted that priueledge Baronius might with the same reason haue affirmed that not only the subscription but also the priueledge it selfe was afterwards made and adioyned to S. Gregories Epistles which without doubt Baronius would quickly haue acknowledged if it had not beene for those words honore suo priuetur which hee thought made greatly for the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that vpon far weaker grounds hee sticketh not to deny oftentimes priueledges and antiquities which neuer before were called in question 12. And although Pope Gregorie the seuenth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Metz doth not cite this priueledge of S. Gregorie granted to the Monasterie of S. Meâ—ard which is no small coniecture that this priueledge was not extant in those daies among the Epistles of S. Gregorie for otherwise it bearing so great a shew of being authenticall by the subscription of 30 Bishops and the King and Queene of France who were witnesses thereunto it would by all likelihood haue beene cited by Pope Gregorie the seuenth but an other priueledge granted to an other Monasterie by S Gregorie in his Epistle to one Senator Abbot Å¿ Lib. 11. epist epist 10. wherin S. Gregorie did not say honore suo priuetur let him be depriued of his honour but potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want or I desire he may want not his honour but the worthinesse of his power and honour which words are not so forcible to prooue the Popes authoritie to depriue Kings of their princely honour and power but at the most to declare them to bee vnworthy of it for some crime committed by them and to be worthy also to be damned in hell with Iudas the Traitor for that many a one may be a true King and haue princely power and honour who is vnworthy thereof Neuerthelesse besides that the aforesaid words do containe no sentence of depriuation but onely a curse or imprecation which kinde of imprecations euen containing anathema was frequent in the priueledges granted by Lay-men yea and vpon sepulchres that men should be fearefull to violate them as Baronius t Ad an 1097. Num. 51. relateth also this priueledge mentioned in S. Gregories epistle to Senator is not so authenticall both for that it hath neither date of any yeare or day when it was written nor subscription of any witnesse which by likelihood it would haue had if there had beene any authenticall copie thereof and also for that the Authour of the booke intituled de vnitate Ecclesiae who is thought to be Venericus Bishop of Vercellis and liued in Pope Gregorie the seuenth his time answering that epistle of Pope Gregorie the seuenth to the Bishop of Metz doth bouldly affirme that those words potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the worthinesse of his power and honour were not in those daies extant among the workes of S. Gregorie Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue what weake demonstrations and authorities Card. Bellarmine doth so often inculcate to conuince this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Painces to be a point of faith 13 Thirdly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to those most famous French writers whom I related before But although it be true that the most part of those seuenteene French writers related by Card Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Schulckenius against me are of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes this neuerthelesse may also be true which Petrus Pithaeus affirmeth to wit that France vnderstanding thereby the State of France hath euer held the the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdom May it not truly be said that the Kingdome and State of England hath from the first yeere of Queene Elizabeths reigne euen to this present time held that the Catholike Romane Religion is not the true Religion notwithstanding that not onely seuenteene but seuenteene thousands there haue been of English Catholikes since the first beginning of hir reigne till now who haue held the contrarie wherefore when Petrus Pithaeus affirmed that France hath euer held that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King by France hee did not vnderstand euery particular French-man but the State and temporall Gouernours of the Kingdome of France which his assertion is also confirmed by the State and Parliament of Paris first in the censuring of Card Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay then in burning his Schulckenius written against me afterwards in condemning Suarez booke against his Maiesties Apologie for maintayning so stifly this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls which they call a scandalous and seditious a damnable and pernicious doctrine and now lastly by the decree of the Parliament of Paris the second of Ianuarie of this present yeere 1615 wherein it is ordained that it shall not bee held for problematique and also by the new oath of allegiance like vnto that of ours but that ours is more sweete and more modest as the Cardinall du Peron u Pag. 100. affirmeth which those of the lower house of the generall assembly of all the States of France whom the same Cardinall du Peron in his speech to them confesseth to be Catholikes x Pag. 96. endeauoured to haue made for a fundamentall Law 14 Lastly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to reason it is repugnant to the principles of the Catholike faith For if the Subiects of the King of France be bound to obey their King being excommunicated and that they can not be absolued from this obedience by the Pope it followeth that either the King of France can not be bound by Christ his Vicar with the bond of ExcoÌ„munication or that his Subiects can not be loosed from the bond of their allegiance and obedience Both are repugnant to the words of Christ who said to his Vicar whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed also in heauen Neither did Christ except the King of France or his Subiects and who hath excepted them I can not tell This I know that no man could by right except them and whosoeuer will not be subiect to the keyes of the Church I know and with a cleare voice I doe pronounce that hee will neither bee a Christian nor can â—â—e appertaine to the kingdome of Christ 15 Great words to small purpose For although it be true that Card Bellarmine Suarez and some few others are or seeme to be of opinion that it is against reason and against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes yet it is also true that other learned Catholikes are of opinion that it is neither against reason nor against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold
5. p. 203. That which my Aduersarie Widdrington saith that the mysticall bodie Church or Christian common-wealth is compounded of spirituall authority alone is true in this sense that to compound the Christian common-wealth there is not necessary a power which is formally ciuill but yet there is necessarie a power which is so formally spirituall that it is also vertually ciuill c. For how can the Church of Christ be compounded of ciuill and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers and yet the Church not haue power which is formally ciuill but onely spirituall Neuerthelesse I doe not intend to denie that the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power among Christians may in this sense be called vertually ciuill or temporall because it may for the spirituall good command and compell spiritually temporall Princes to vse their temporall power for this were onely to contend about words but that the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is truely properly and formally compounded of ciuil and spiritualll power this I say is both vntrue and also flat contrarie to Card. Bellarmines own grounds but whether the spiritual power of the church may be called vertually ciuill or temporal for that it may also constraine and punish temporall Princes temporally or vse temporall and ciuill authoritie in case the temporall Prince for the spirituall good will not vse it this is the maine question betwixt mee and Card. Bellarmine 7. To conclude therefore this answere I doe freely grant that Kings and Bishops Clearks and Laicks as by baptisme they are regenerate in Christ doe truely properly and formally make one entire and totall body which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head but I vtterly deny that this spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is compounded of spirituall and temporall but onely of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or that Clearks and Laicks as they are citizens or by their naturall birth are subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes doe compound this Church of Christ but onely the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world which are onely compounded of ciuill and temporall authority In which Christian world or Christian common-wealth taking them for an aggregatum per accidens including both the spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof the Pope is head and also earthly kingdomes whereof Christian Princes are the onely visible heads for the Church of Christ is seldome times taken in this sense there is but one totall or intire Catholike Church yet there be many intire temporall kingdomes or common-wealths as of English French Spanish which haue their seuerall Princes Lawes and gouernments and haue no other communion then in friendship and amitie Yea the Catholike Church is one totall body or common-wealth in Christian and Infidell kingdomes And also in one particular Christian kingdome there be two distinct totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the temporall consisting of ciuill power and the Ecclesiasticall consisting of spirituall wherein as there bee two distinct communions the one spirituall in things belonging to grace and the other temporall in things belonging to nature So also their be two excommunications the one in spirituals wherein those that be excommunicated by the Church doe not participate and the other in temporalls whereof those who be excommunicated or made out-lawes by temporall Princes are not partakers in so much that they who are depriued of one of these communions are not thereby depriued of the other for an out-law may be a member of the Church and be partaker of spirituall communion and he who by Excommunication is depriued of Ecclesiasticall communion may bee a member of the ciuill common-wealth as Heathens and Publicans were and not therefore to be excluded from ciuill societie and conuersation 8. Wherefore although the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the visible heads thereof doe truely properly and formally make diuerse totall bodies or common-wealths which neuerthelesse ought both to conspire in league friendship to bring both Princes and subiects to life euerlasting yet they are not like to two confederate Cities or Kingdomes which are onely vnited in league and amity and haue no ciuill communion one with the other neither is the same man a citizen of both Cities or a subiect of both Kingdomes but the temporall and spirituall power are so vnited among Christians that the same man who by ciuill conuersation or naturall birth is a citizen part and member of the temporall City Kingdome or Common-wealth and consequently subiect to her Lawes is also by baptisme or spirituall regeneration made a citizen part or member of the spirituall Citie Kingdome or Cōmon-wealth which is the Church of Christ and consequently is also subiect to her Lawes So that although the vnion and communion of earthly Kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome of Christ bee greater among Christians then of two confederate Cities or temporall kingdomes yet this vnion and communion being onely material accidentall and in subiect as Musicke and Physicke are vnited in one man by reason whereof the same man is both a Musician and a Physician and consequently subiect to the precepts and directions of either art is not sufficient to cause them to make truely properly and formally one totall body kingdome or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head as neither the vnion of two accidents in one subiect is sufficient to cause them to make truely properly and formally one entire totall accidentall cōpound Neuerthelesse I do not deny as I obserued before but that the temporal spiritual power earthly kingdomes and the spiritual kingdome of Christ as they are referred to Christ who at leastwise as God is the head of them both doe make one totall body whereof Christ onely is the head which may be called the Christian world consisting of ciuill and spirituall power but in this manner neither the Pope nor temporall Princes are the head but onely parts and members of this totall body as beneath l Cap. 1. nu 4. I will declare more at large Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzen comparing the temporall and spirituall power to the body and soule in man is declared 1. THe second argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth is taken from the authority of S. Gregory Nazianzene who compareth the spirituall and temporall power among Christians to the soule and body of man From which similitude Card. Bellarmine argueth in this manner a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. These two powers in the Church saith hee are like to the spirit and body in a man For the body the spirit are as it were two common-wealths which may be found diuided and vnited The body is found without the spirit in beasts the spirit is found without the body in Angels the body and spirit are both vnited in man and doe make
by any necessarie consequence bee inferred that the ciuill power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect and subordained to the spirituall power or that the end of the ciuill power is subordained to the end of the spirituall power but at the most that both of them haue one the selfe same last end to wit the eternall felicitie of man to which the spirituall power leadeth Christian men by spirituall meanes to wit by spirituall directions lawes and punishments and the ciuill power by ciuill meanes directions lawes and punishments And therefore there is no subordination of ends betwixt the ends of the spirituall and temporall power and consequently no subordination of powers but they haue both one last end to wit euerlasting happinesse although diuerse waies or meanes to attaine thereunto not much vnlike diuerse lines in a circle which doe end all in one center and yet one line is not subordained to another although all of them â—e tend by diuerse waies to the same center And therefore by this first argument Card. Bellarmine hath not sufficiently proued that the ciuill power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subordained to the spirituall or the proper end of the ciuil power which is her act tending to teÌ„porall peace subordained to the proper end of the spirituall power which is also her act tending lastly to euerlasting happinesse although I should grant him that both of them haue per se and of their owne nature one and the selfe same last end which is the eternall saluation of man in whom those powers doe reside And therefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing belike the sufficiencie of my answere and the weaknesse of his owne Reply flieth to a second Reply which neuerthelesse is as insufficient as the former 22. But although we should grant saith he p Pag. 333. to Widdrington that the end of the ciuill power is not referred per se and of it owne nature to the end of the spirituall but onely by the intention of the Prince in whom the ciuill power doth reside yet the argument which Card. Bellarmine brought from the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall to proue that the spirituall Prince could not onely command temporall Princes but also dispose of temporalls in order to spirituall good would be most strong and good For a Christian temporall Prince ought to referre the publike peace which is the end of ciuill power to the eternall peace and felicitie of himselfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And therefore hee ought to subiect and subordaine the end of his power to the end of the power of the spirituall Prince But as he ought to subiect and subordaine end to end so also power to power Wherefore hee ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power and that so the sword be vnder the sword and in the Christian common wealth there be order peace and quietnesse whiles Superiours do rule inferiours and inferiours be subiect to Superiours 23. But in this Reply there lie hidden some cunning equiuocations and the most that it proueth as oftentimes heretofore I haue signified is that the temporall power or sword or rather temporall Princes who haue temporall power and beare the temporall sword are in spirituall causes whether of their owne nature or by some accidentall circumstance they become spirituall to the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power by which they are to be directed corrected not in meere temporals but only in spirituals not by temporall lawes or with temporall punishments which doe belong onely to the temporall power but only by Ecclesiasticall lawes or directions and with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments or corrections which onely do appertaine to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power 24. True it is that eternall saluation is the last create end not only of the spirituall but also of the temporall power among Christians seeing that all Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre their temporall power and the vse thereof not onely to temporall peace in the common weath which is the last end which temporall power hath per se and of it owne nature but also to the eternall peace and felicity of themselues and of their people And therefore there is here no subordination of ends betwixt the temporall power and the spirituall and consequently in this respect no subordination of powers as D. Schulckenius doth here from thence inferre but aswell the ciuill power among Christians as the spirituall haue one and the selfe same last end whether it bee intrinsecall to one power and extrinsecall to the other or intrinsecall to both as I declared before to which the temporall power by temporall lawes directions and corrections and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes directions and corrections or punishments are by the law of Christ bound to direct and lead all Christians 25. Whereupon S. Thomas or whosoeuer bee the Authour of that booke de Regimine Principum doth well affirme q Lib. 1 c. 14. that the end which a King ought principally to intend in himselfe and in his subiects is eternall happinesse which doth consist in the seeing of God and because this seeing of God is the most perfect good of all it ought to moue exceedingly a King and euery Lord that their subiects may attaine to this end Therefore when Kings saith S. Austin r Tom. 2. epist 50. in the time of the Apostles did not serue our Lord then impieties could not be forbidden by lawes but rather exercised But afterwards when that began to be fulfilled which is written Å¿ Psal 71. And all the Kinges of the earth shall adore him all nations shall serue him What sober minded man can say to Kings Doe not you regard by whom the Church of your Lord is defended or impugned in your kingdome that it doth not appertaine to you who will be religious or sacrilegious in your kingdome to whom it can not be said that it doth not appertaine to you who will bee chast or wanton in your kingdome 27. Wherefore if a Christian Prince should by his lawes or otherwise withdraw his subiects from the attaining to eternall saluation should impugne not defend the Church command not forbid impieties hee should greatly offend God and the Church and ought not to take it in ill part that hee should be therefore corrected by the chiefe Pastour of the Church to whom he is subiect in spiritualls with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the spirituall power But if the Pastour of the Church should take vpon him to correct such a Prince by way of coercion and constraint with temporall punishments which kinde of correction doth passe the limits of his spirituall power then the Prince may iustly take it in ill part for this were to vsurpe
temporall Iurisdiction which is proper only to a temporall Prince and not to obserue due order but to make a confusion betwixt sword and sword betwixt the spirituall and temporall power which temporall power is only in spirituall corrections and not in temporall punishments subiect to the constraint of the temporall power 28 And therefore well said our most learned Countryman Alexander of Hales t 3. part q. 40. memb 5. q. 4. cited by me before that the subiection of Kings and Emperours to the Pope is in spirituall not corporall punishment according as it is said 2a. q. 7. that it belongeth to Kings to exercise corporall punishment and to Priests to vse spirituall correction Wherevpon S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperour Arcadius and did forbid him to enter into the Church For as an earthly Iudge not without cause beareth the sword as it is said Rom 13. so Priests doe not without cause receiue the keyes of the Church he beareth the sword to the punishment of malefactors and commendation of the good these haue keyes to the excluding of excommunicated persons and reconciling of them who are penitent Expound therefore A King is to be punished only by God that is with materiall punishment and againe A King hath no man to iudge his doings that is to inflict corporall punishment and a little beneath A King saith Alexander doth excell 1. Pet 2. true it is in his order to wit to inflict corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but only God what can be spoken more plainly 29 And by this you easily see the weaknes of D. Schulckenius his argument and how cunningly with generall and ambiguous words he would delude his Reader A temporall Prince saith he ought to refer publike peace to the eternall peace and folâ—estie of him selfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And what then And as hee ought to subiect temporall peace to eternall peace so he ought to subiect his temporall power to the spirituall power But how in what manner in what causes in what punishments temporall power ought to bee subiect to spirituall power D. Schulc cunningly concealeth Temporall power to be subiect to spirituall if wee will speake properly and in abstracto doth signifie that a temporall Prince is in all temporall affaires subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastors And if by those generall words D. Schulckenius meaneth this he falleth into the Canonists opinion whose doctrine in this point learned Victoria u in Relect. 1. de potest Eccles num 2. 3. is not afraid to condemn as manifestly false and who being poore themselues in learning and riches to flatter the Pope gaue him this direct power and dominion in temporalls For the truth is that temporall Princes in temporall affaires are not subiect to any besides God alone which is the receiued doctrine of the ancient Fathers The sense therefore of that proposition must be that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in temporalls subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope But what then wherefore he ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power c. Still you see he speaketh ambiguously and in generall words the sense whereof if hee had declared you would presently haue perceiued the weaknesse of his argument for if he meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed in spiritualls and in things belonging to Christian Religion and corrected with spirituall punishments by the Pope this I easily grant him and so he proueth nothing against me but if hee meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed by the Pope in temporalls and corrected by him with temporall punishments this consequence I vtterly denie for this were to confound all good order and to vsurpe temporall Iurisdiction as I declared before And thus much concerning Card Bellarmines first argument my answer and D. Schulckenius his Reply to the same Chap. 6. Wherein is examined the second argugument taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church 1. THe second argument which Card Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit one Church Rom 12. 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected and one dependeth on the other but it can not rightly be said that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spirituall and are subiect to them 2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered before b Cap. 2. that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes being diuerse waies considered doe make two totall and not onely one totall body or common-wealth For as they are referred to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pastour to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals they make one totall body or common-wealth to wit the Catholike Church which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals as all members are subiect to the head they make another body or common-wealth to wit earthly kingdomes as before I declared more at large And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false 3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof and to shew most plainely that not onely his Maior proposition as I haue prooued before but also his Minor is apparantly false I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected either immediately or mediately to the head vpon whom they all depend yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other there is no man so ignorant that will affirme for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other nor one arme vpon the other nor one shoulder vpon the other but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues or to other members to which they adhere May it not I pray you by the same manner of arguing and by the very same argument be concluded thus The armes or euery man are members of one body but in euery bodie the members are connected and depending one vpon the other but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right and is subiect vnto it Who would not skorn such foolish arguments 4. To this answer Card. Bellarmine c In Tract contra Bâ—rcl
dependeth vpon the other now his argument proceedeth thus Members doe depend vpon the head the Pope is head of the Church therefore Kings who are members of the Church doe depend vpon the Pope which are two distinct arguments yet both of them fallacious and insufficient to proue that the temporall power it selfe or which is all one that temporall Kings in temporall causes are subiect to the Pope as you haue seene before 9. Thirdly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that the assertion of D. Barclay comparing these two powers to two shoulders of the Church which are connected to one head who is Christ doth appertaine to the heresie of this time which affirmeth that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church and that D. Barclay doth of his owne accord grant thus much M. Iohn Barclay answereth that Card. Bellarmine doth in this both slander D. Barclay and also maketh the Church and Pope odious to Princes For what Protestant reading this may not with very good reason conclude that Catholikes according to Card. Bellarmines doctrin when they say that the Pope is the visible head of the Church and that this is a point of Catholike-faith doe vnderstand that he is head and Gouernour not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill causes what wise men of this world will not relate these sayings to Princes and what Prince can without indignation here them Neither did D. Barclay euer make any doubt but that the Pope Christs Vicar in earth was head in Ecclesiasticall causes neither did Catholike faith euer teach that he was head in ciuill causes Only Christ is head of Popes and Kings the chiefe head I say of the Church Whereupon S. Austin doth affirme f In serm de remiss pec refertur 1. q. 1. can Vt eui denter that an excommunicated person is out of the Church and out of the body whereof Christ is the head 10. And therefore that similitude betweene the soule and body compounding one man and the spirituall and ciuill power compounding one Church or rather one Christian common wealth or Christian world is no fit similitude and it is wrongfully ascribed to S. Gregorie Nazianzene by Card. Bellarmine as I shewed before g Cap. 3. for that the soule is as the forme and the body as the matter compounding one essentiall thing which is man but the ciuill power is not as the matter nor the spirituall as the forme compounding one essentiall body which is the Church of Christ but if we will haue them to compound one totall body which is the Church taking the Church for the Christian world consisting both of the temporal and spirituall power which are in Christians whereof Christ or God and not the Pope is the head they are onely integrall to vse the termes of Philosophers and not essentiall parts neither doe they compound one essentiall but only one integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessary that one part doth depend vpon the other as hath beene now conuinced but all must of necessitie depend vpon the head although in an essentiall compound one part must of necessitie depend vpon the other for that in such a compound one part must bee as the matter and the other as the forme as I declared before 11. Wherefore the spirituall and ciuill power in the Church taking the Church for the Christian world containing in it both powers or which is all one for the company of all Christians in whome are both powers or both subiections are not like to the soule and body which are essentiall parts of man but they are as two shoulders or two sides which are only integrall parts of mans body both which powers although each of them in their kinde bee a visible head the one of temporals the other of spirituals and in that respect doe formally make two totall bodies to wit earthly kingdomes whereof temporall Princes are the head and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the chiefe visible head yet they are connected to one celestiall and inuisible head which is Christ in which respect they make one totall body whereof Christ onely and not the Pope is head which may bee called the Christian world consisting of earthly kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ 12. Neither is it true that these two powers be of so diuerse a kinde that they cannot be well compared to two shoulders for both of them are powers and in that respect of the same kinde and as powers they are compared to two shoulders And why may they not bee aptly compared to two shoulders seeing that there is nothing more strong and more neere to the head in the Christian common-wealth Neither is it materiall that one is a more strong shoulder then the other for in mans body the right arme is stronger then the left and yet one is not more an arme then the other May not I pray you two pillars of a diuerse kinde one of brasse the other of marble bee aptly compared one with the other in that both of them are pillars The temporall and the ciuill power or Kings as Kings and hauing temporall authoritie and Bishops as Bishops and hauing spirituall power are as two visible pillars which doe sustaine the edifice of the Christian world or common-wealth the one in temporalls the other in spirituals they are as two shoulders which as in mans body are next vnder the head and all the other inferiour members doe depend vpon them so also they are next vnder God the head of both and all other inferiour members of the Christian world doe depend vpon them nay being compared to the inferiour members of the Christian world they are also as two visible and ministeriall heads from whence as from the head of mans body which is the roote beginning and foundation of all sense and motion in all the inferiour parts all spirituall and temporall directions Lawes and punishments doe proceed 13. And truely if D. Barclay must bee taxed of heresie for comparing the temporall and spirituall power in the Church or Christian world for now the Church and Christian world which consisteth of both powers is taken for all one to two shoulders and for affirming that Christ only is the chiefe celestial and invisible head of both these powers and that Kings and Popes are two ministeriall heads thereof although both of them are also principall in their owne kinde and in the nature of a visible head then must Hugo de S. Victore be taxed of heresie when he compareth i Lib. 2. de Saâ—ram p. 2. ca. 3. these two powers to two sides affirming that Lay-men who haue care of earthly things are the left side of this body and Clergie men who do minister spirituall things are the right and that earthly power hath the King for the head and the spirituall hath the Pope for head Lo heere two sides and consequently two shoulders and two
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
formally one politike body and therefore one power is not per se subiect to the other But what man that is well in his wits did euer say that of the temporall and spirituall power is made formally one politike body For although Cleargie men are Cittizens of the ciuill common wealth as they liue together with the Citizens of that common wealth and do buy sell and doe other things according to the lawes of that common-wealth yet because they are exempted from the power of the politike Prince and doe obserue his lawes not by force of the law but by force of reason they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called parts of the ciuill common-wealth 8. Adde also that if the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power should make one politike body the Ecclesiasticall should either be superiour or subiect to the ciuill superiour it could not be for that the King is head of the politike body neither could it be subiect for that a superiour power ought not to be subiect to an inferiour And besides as it hath beene sayd Cleargie men are exempted from the power of a politike Prince and therefore the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe not make properly and formally one politike body But my Aduersarie doth faine absurd opinions which hee may refell That which Card. Bellarmine saith is that the spirituall and temporall power that is Bishops Kings and their subiects Clerkes and Laikes doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ wherein all things are well ordered and disposed and therefore superiour things doe rule inferiour things and inferiour things are subiect to superiour things Let my Aduersarie Widdrington ouerthrow this and then let him deny the consequence of Card. Bellarmines argument Thus D. Schulckenius 9. But how vnsound cunning and insufficient is this Reply of D. Schulckenius and also repugnant to his owne grounds you shall presently perceiue And first when I denied that the spirituall and temporall power doe make formally one politike body by a politike body I did not vnderstand as it distinguished and contra-diuided to a spirituall body but as it is distinguished from a naturall body and comprehendeth in generall all politike gouernments whether they be temporall spirituall or mixt in which sense not onely earthly kingdomes compounded of temporall power but also the spirituall kingdome mysticall body or Church of Christ consisting onely of spirituall power is a politike body Wherefore by the name of a politike body I vnderstood a common-wealth in generall whether it were temporall spirituall or mixt of both as any man who is not desirous to cauill may easily perceiue by all those answers and assertions which I did so often inculcate concerning the vnion and coniunction of these two powers So that my meaning in that place onely was to deny that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to the visible heads and subiects of both powers doe make formally one totall common-wealth but onely materially for that the same Christian men who haue temporall power or temporall subiection doe make one spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power or temporall subiection for so they make onely temporall and earthly kingdomes but formally as they haue temporall and spirituall power temporall and spirituall subiection and are referred to the visible heads thereof they make two totall bodies or common-wealths as before I haue declared more at large 10. Secondly although it be true that temporall and spirituall power that is Kings and Bishops Clerks and Laikes as D. Schulckenius expoundeth those words which neuerthelesse is a very improper acception of those words for that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doth signifie Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they haue temporall and spirituall power doe make one Church one Christian common-wealth one people one kingdome or mysticall body of Christ yet this was not all that which Card. Bellarmine affirmed for Card. Bellarmine affirmed another thing which I pretended to impugne and which D. Schulckenius cunningly concealeth to wit that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one This was that which I impugned not two common-wealths but one I neuer denied that they did make one common-wealth to wit the Church of Christ but withall I affirmed that they did make also two to wit the earthly kingdomes also of this Christian world So that I did not inuent or faine absurd opinions to confute them as D. Schulckenius vntruely affirmeth but I haue cleerely shewed and that out of Card. Bellarmines or D. Schulckenius his owne grounds as before you haue seene more at large d Cap. 1. 2. 3. that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally two totall bodies or common-wealths and that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes diuerse wayes considered are parts and members of them both 11. Thirdly although I had taken a politike bodie for a temporall common-wealth as in very truth I did not but onely for a common-wealth in generall as a politike bodie is distinguished from a naturall bodie yet I might be very well in my wits and neuerthelesse haue affirmed that the temporall and spirituall power doe in the like manner and for the same cause make formally one temporal common-wealth for the which D. Schulckenius doth heere affirme that temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one spirituall bodie or common-wealth For the reason why he affirmeth that the temporall and spirituall power doe make formally one Ecclesiasticall or spirituall common-wealth is for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ and subiect to the spirituall power of the supreme spirituall Pastor which reason if it be of force doth also conclude that the temporall and spirituall power may in like manner â—e sayd to make formally one temporal common-wealth for that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes are also true members and parts of the temporall common-wealth and therfore they are either temporall Princes themselues or subiect in temporals to the temporal power of temporal Princes And therfore the reason why D. Schulckenius doth here affirm That the temporall and spiritual power do not make formally one politicke or temporal body is as you haue seen for that the Clergie are exempted from the power of a politicke Prince and do obserue his Lawes not by force of the Law but by force of reason and therefore saith he they cannot properly and formally but onely materially be called a part of the politicke common-wealth From whence it cleerly followeth that if a man may be well in his wits and yet affirme that Cleargie men are true parts members and subiects of the temporall common wealth and consequently are not exempted from temporall subiection but doe owe true fidelitie and allegiance to temporall Princes hee may also bee well in his wits and yet affirme according to D. Shulckenius his reason that of the temporall
and spirituall power that is of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes is made properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth 12. And dare D. Schulckenius trow you presume to say that S. Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius * Ad Rom. 13. and those others whom partly I did cite before e Cap. 6. and partly I will beneath f Cap. 12. were not well in their wits when they affirmed That whether he be a Monke or a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes Or dare he presume to say that Dominicus Sotus Franciscus Victoria Medina Sayrus Valentia and innumerable other Diuines cited by Sayrus g Lib. 3. Thesaurie 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16 and also by Salas h Disp 14. de Legibus sect 8. the Iesuite whose opinion hee approoueth and withall affirmeth That some few moderne Diuines doe hold the contrary were not well in their wits when they taught that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to their state nor to Ecclesiasticall Lawes or Canons and that Kings are Lords of Cleargie men and that Cleargie men are bound to come at their call and as Subiects to sweare allegeance and obedience to them as Salas in expresse words affirmeth and that Cleargie men are not exempted from secular power concerning the directiue or commanding force thereof in ciuill Lawes which are profitable to the good state of the common wealth which are the expresse words of Gregorius de Valentia tom 3. disp 9. q. 5. punc 3. 13 And to conclude dare D. Schulckenius presume to say that Cardinall Bellarmine was not well in his wits when hee wrote i Lib. 1. de Clericis câ—p 28. propos 2a. That Cleargie men are not in any manner exempted from the obligation of ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to holy Canons or to the office of their Clergie although in the last Editions of his Booke he hath left out those words in any manner not alleaging any cause wherefore And therefore although Cleargie men are by the Ecclesiastical Lawes and priuiledges of temporall Princes exempted fâ—om the tribunalls of secular Magistrates and from paying of certaine tributes and personall seruices yet to say that they are exempted wholly from temporall subiection and that they are not subiect to the directiue power of the ciuil Lawes nor can truely and properly commit treasons against any temporall Prince for that they owe not true fidelitie allegiance and ciuill subiection to any temporall Prince as some few Iesuites of these latter times haue not feared to a uerre whose opinion Card. Bellarmine now contrarie to his ancient doctrine which for many yeeres together he publikely maintained doth now seeme to follow is repugnant in my iudgement both to holy Scriptures so expounded by the ancient Fathers to the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and once also of Card. Bellarmine himselfe at which time I thinke D. Schulckenius will not say that he was not wel in his wits and also to the practise both of the primitiue Church and of all Christian Kingdomes euen to these dayes and it is a doctrine newly broached in the Christian world without sufficient proofe scandalous to Catholike Religion iniurious to Chrian Princes and odious to the pious eares of all faithfull and well affected Subiects 14. The other reason which D. Schulckenius allegeth why Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laicks doe not make properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth for to say that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doe make formally either one temporal or one spiritual coÌ„mon-wealth is very vntrue and repugnant to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before vnlesse we will speake very improperly to wit for that Cleargie men are superiour and not subiect is as insufficient as the former for that temporall Princes are in temporalls superiour and haue preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy men And therefore the temporall and spirituall power or Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth doe neither make one politike or temporall body nor one spirituall or Ecclesiasticall body nor one total common-wealth consisting of both powers whereof the Pope is head but they doe make formally and properly two totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the spirituall kingdome of Christ which consisteth onely of spirituall power and the earthly kingdomes of this Christian world which consisteth onely of temporall and ciuill authority both which bodies are commonly signified by the name of the Christian world or Christian common-wealth wherin all things are well ordered and rightly disposed and therefore superiours are aboue inferiours and inferiours are subiect to superiours but in temporall causes temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the head hath the preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy-men and in spirituall causes the spirituall power whereof the Pope is head is superiour and to confound these two powers were to breake all good order as before I also declared And therfore for good reason I granted the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument and denied his consequence 15. But fourthly obserue good Reader another palpable vntruth which D. Schulckenius in this place affirmeth Card. Bellarmine as you haue seene endeuoured by his third argument to proue that the temporall power as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and his argument was this If the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of the temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall .. The antecedent proposition I did grant and I denied his consequence Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth that for this cause I denyed his consequence for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made formally one politike body which is very vntrue For although I should acknowledge as in very deede I doe that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to Christ the invisible and celestiall head doe make properly and formally one totall body or common-wealth consisting of both powers which may be called the Christian common wealth but more properly the Christian world yet I would and doe denie his consequence and the reason hereof I alledged before for that they are not essentiall parts of this totall bodie as the bodie soule are of man but integrall parts as two shoulders two sides hands feete eyes eares c. are integrall parts of mans bodie and doe not make an essentiall but an integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessarie as I shewed before k Cap. 6. nu 6. 10. that one part bee subiect to an other but it sufficeth that both be subiect to the head And although I should also grant as I doe that temporall and spirituall power doe
mysticall bodie of Christ and the spirituall Kingdome of Christ are altogether the same of which common-wealth Kings with Laikes Bishops with Clerks are parts as oftentimes hath beene sayd In which Christian com-wealth and mysticall body and Kingdome of Christ all things are so well disposed and ordered that temporall things doe serue spirituall and ciuill power is subiect to Ecclesiasticall which conclusion my Aduersarie Widdrington hath many waies attempted to ouerthrow but he was not able And he was not able not onely to ouerthrow the conclusion but also he hath not beene able to weaken at all with any probable answer the first argument which Card. Bellarmine brought to prooue this conclusion which the Readers will easily perceiue if without perturbation of minde they will consider that which hath beene sayd by vs. 24 But this Reply of D. Schulckenius is as fraudulent and insufficient as the former for in effect it is only a repetition of his former Reply to which I haue already answered besides some fraudulent dealing which he hath vsed herein And first it is very true that I granted the antecedent proposition of this second Reply of Card. Bellarmine but that all the force of Card. Bellarmines argument doth consist in the antecedent proposition or assumption as D. Schulckenius affirmeth is very vntrue and I wonder that D. Schulckenius is not ashamed with such boldnesse to affirme the same The Antecedent proposition was that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporal gouernment if it hurt the spirituall good not onely of his owne Subiects but also of the Subiects of other Christian Princes and this proposition I did willingly grant him but the force of his argument did not consist only in this antecedent proposition as D. Schulckenius vntruly affirmeth but in the consequence which hee inferred from this antecedent proposition or if wee will reduce his argument to a syllogisticall forme in his Minor proposition or assumption which was this but of this to wit that a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment in the case aforesaid no other reason can be giuen but that both powers are members of the same body and one power or body subiect to the other And this consequence assumption or Minor proposition wherein the whole force of his argument did consist I vtterly denyed and I alledged as you haue seene an other plaine and perspicuous reason why a Christian Prince in the case aforesaid is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment to wit not for that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or for that they make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting of temporall and spirituall power but for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are parts and members not onely of the temporall but also of the spiritual common-wealth for which cause a Christian Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it is hurtfull to the spirituall good of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ whereof he is a true part and member as I declared before 25. Secondly it is very vntrue that I doe any waie contradict my selfe as D. Schulckenius affirmeth first in denying that temporall power is per se subiect to the spirituall or that both of them are parts of one and the selfe-same Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ and afterwards in granting that temporall Kings and their subiects are members of the same spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For these propositions temporall power is not per se subiect to spirituall power and temporall Princes are subiect to spirituall power are not repugnant or contradictorie one to the other as neither these propositions are contradictory Temporall power and spirituall power are not parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and temporall Princes are parts of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ For contradiction according to Aristotle n Lib. 1. de Interp. cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the same thing and in the same manner But there is no man so ignorant that will affirme that the same thing and in the same manner is affirmed and denied in the aforesaid propositions for the subiect of the first propositions is temporall power in abstracto and it is taken formally and in the second propositions it is temporall power in concreto and it is taken onely materially and hath this sense that temporall Princes who haue both temporall power and also spirituall subiection are indeed subiect to the spirituall power and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome of Christ but not formally as they haue temporall power but onely materially who haue temporall power but formally as they haue spiritual subiection But D. Schulckenius doth manifestly contradict himselfe as I plainely shewed before o Cap. 2. first affirming That the Church of Christ is compounded of temporall and spirituall power which are formally two distinct powers as he himselfe also confesseth and afterwards in denying that it is compounded of temporall or ciuill power which is formally ciuill 26. But marke now good Reader what fraude D. Schulckenius vseth in prouing that I doe manifestly contradict my selfe He would seeme to his Reader to proue that I affirme and deny one and the selfe same thing for this he taketh vpon him to proue and yet he proueth nothing else but that which I haue alwaies affirmed and neuer denied to wit that Christian Kings and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to the spirituall power thereof but the contradiction which hee pretended to proue he doth not proue at all nor make any shew of proofe thereof to wit that it is all one to say that Christian Princes and their subiects are parts and members of the Church and subiect to her spirituall power which I alwaies granted and that the temporall and spirituall power doe compound the Church or that the temporall power it selfe is per se subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which I euer denied and out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds haue cleerely proued the contrary and haue plainely shewed that temporall power doth only compound a temporall or ciuill body or common-wealth whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius doth heere expresly affirme and that the Church of Christ his mysticall body and spirituall Kingdome or Christian common-wealth taking the Christian common-wealth for the Church onely and not for the Christian world as it containeth temporall and spirituall power is compounded onely of spirituall and not of temporall power In which Church of Christ and also Christian world all things are so well ordered and disposed that temporall things ought by the intention of good Christians to serue spirituall things and temporall Princes although in spiritualls they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church yet in temporalls or as they haue temporall power they are not subiect but supreame and consequently the
temporall power it selfe speaking properly and formally is not subiect to the spirituall nor dooth compound the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ And therefore I haue not onely weakened but also quite ouerthrowne and that out of his owne grounds this conclusion of Card. Bellarmine and all those three arguments which he brought to confirme the same as any iudicious Reader who will duly examine both our writings will easily perceiue Chap. 8. Wherein is examined the fourth argument taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man 1. THE fourth argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue this subiection of of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall power of the Church is taken from the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene who compareth the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man yea and also affirmeth that temporall Magistrates are subiect to spirituall Pastors And this similitude doth so greatly please Card. Bellarmines conceit that when hee hath any fit occasion he spareth not to inculcate it as a very strong argument and fit similitude to proue that the temporall power among Christians is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as the body in man is per se subiect to the soule For as the spirit and flesh saith he a Lib. 5. de RoÌ„ pont cap. 6. are in man so are the spirituall and temporall power in the Church For the spirit and flesh are as it were two common-wealths which may be found separated and also vnited The flesh hath sense and appetite to which are answerable their acts and proper obiects and of all which the immediate end is the health good constitution of the body The spirit hath vnderstanding and wil and acts and proportionate obiects and for her end the health and perfection of the soule The flesh is found without the spirit in beasts the spirit is found without the flesh in Angels 2 Whereby it is manifest that neither of them is precisely for the other The flâ—sh also is found vnited to the spirit in man where because they make one person they haue necessarily subordination and connexion For the flesh is subiect the spirit is superiour and although the spirit doth not intermeddle hir selfe with the actions of the flesh but doth suffer the flesh to exercise all hir actions as shee doth exercise in beasts yet when they doe hurt the end of the spirit the spirit doth command the flesh and doth punish hir and if it be needfull doth appoint fastings and also other afflictions euen with some detriment and weakning of the bodie and doth compell the tongue not to speake the eyes not to see c. In like manner if any action of the flesh yea and death it selfe be necessarie to obtaine the end of the spirit the spirit hath power to command the flesh to expose hir selfe and all hirs as wee see in Martyrs 3 Euen so the ciuill power hath hir Princes lawes iudgements c. and likewise the Ecclesiasticall hath hir Bishops Canons iudgements The ciuill hath for hir end temporall peace the spirituall euerlasting saluation They are sometimes found separated as long since in the time of the Apostles sometimes vnited as now And when they are vnited they make one bodie and therefore they ought to be connected and the inferiour subiect and subordained to the superiour Therefore the spirituall power doth not intermeddle hir selfe with temporall affaires but doth suffer all things to proceed as before they were vnited so that they be not hurtfull to the spirituall end or not necessarie to the attayning therevnto But if any such thing doe happen the spirituall power may and ought to compell the temporall by all manner and waies which shall seeme necessarie therevnto 4 Thus you see that Card Bellarmine hath made here a plausible discourse but truly more beseeming as I will most clearely convince a cunning oratour who with fine and wittie conceipts seeketh rather to please curious eares then a sound Diuine who with substantial arguments and forcible proofes should endeauour to convince the vnderstanding of iudicious men especially in such points as are pretended to belong to Catholike faith and eternall saluation For neither is the temporall and spirituall power among Christians well compared to the body and soule of man either in vnion or in subiection and besides although it were in all things a fit similitude yet it doth not any way proue that which Card. Bellarmine pretendeth to proue thereby but it doth clearely and directly as you shall see convince the flat contrarie 5 For first as I shewed before b Cap. 2. 3. out of Card Bellarmines owne grounds the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to their visible heads here on earth doe not make properly and formally one totall bodie or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ but they doe make properly and formally two totall bodies or common wealths to wit earthly kingdomes or a temporall and ciuill bodie whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius expressely affirmeth c Pag. 339. and the spirituall kingdome mysticall bodie or Church of CHRIST whereof the Pope is head and which as D. Schulckenius also affirmeth d Pag. 203. is onely compounded of spirituall power Seeing therefore that the reason why Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that temporall power among Christians is subiect to the spirituall is for that they do make one totall bodie or common-wealth as the bodie and soule doe make one man and consequently the temporall power must be subiect to the spirituall as the bodie is subiect to the soule of man and as I haue clearely proued there is no such vnion of the temporall and spirituall power to make one totall bodie consisting of both powers which is the spirituall kingdome or Church of CHRIST it is manifest that Card Bellarmines argument drawne from this similitude of the soule and bodie being grounded vpon this vnion of the temporall and spirituall power compounding one totall bodie hath no sure ground or foundation at all 6 Secondly although I doe willingly grant as you haue seene before e Cap. 1. that not onely the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred not to their visible heads here on earth but to CHRIST the invisible head of them both doe make one totall bodie or common-wealth consisting actually of both powers which may bee called the Christian world in which sense the Christian common wealth is vsually taken but the Church of CHRIST and especially the spirituall kingdome of CHRIST is seldome taken in that sense but also the whole world consisting of Christians and Infidells may in that manner be called one totall bodie whereof CHRIST at least wise as he is GOD is the invisible and celestiall head neuerthelesse this similitude of the soule and bodie vnited in one man
forth for the Church but the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but indeed at the booke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour 2. The pricipall words of Pope Boniface besides those which hee doth imitate out of S Bernard are That in the Catholicke and Apostolike Church whereof Christ is the head and S. Peter his Vicar and in her power there be two swords the spirituall and the temporall as we are instructed by those words of the Gospell Behold heere that is in the Church two swords c. And that the sword must be vnder the sword the temporall authoritie subiect to the spirituall power For the spirituall the truth so witnessing hath to instruct the earthly power and to iudge if it be not good So of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical power the prophesie of Ieremy is verified behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer nations and Kingdomes and the rest which follow Therefore if the earthly power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by the spirituall power but if the inferiour spirituall power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by her superiour but if the supreme goeth out of the way shee can be iudged by God alone and not by man according to the testimony of the Apostle That the spiritual man iudgeth all things and he is iudged by none From all which Card. Bellarmine who only relateth S. Bernards words and affirmeth that Pope Boniface doth imitate the same doth conclude that the meaning of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface was to affirme that both the temporall and spiritual sword are in the power of the Pope that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword and because the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall therefore the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 3. Thus you see what S. Bernard and Pope Boniface doe affirme and also that Card. Bellarmine inferreth and concludeth from their words And although to this which Card. Bellarmine inferreth from their words there needeth no answere at all for that I doe willingly grant all that which he doth inferre to wit that the temporall sword is subiect in some cases to the commanding power of the Pope and that the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church shall require it seeing that the question betweene mee and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning the Popes commanding power and whether the Pope may command a King to vse the temporal sword in the necessitie of the Church as I haue oftentimes in all my Bookes expresly affirmed but concerning the Popes coerciue power and whether if a King will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope hath power to vse it himselfe and may constraine a King not only with spirituall but also with temporal compulsion and punishment to fulfill his iust command Neuerthelesse because Card. Bellarmine hath now in his Schulckenius taken some exceptions against the answere which I made in my Apologie to the authortie of S. Bernard and consequently of Pope Boniface who as hee saith doth imitate S. Bernards words I thinke it not amisse to set downe my answere and also his Reply that so the Reader may cleerely perceiue whether S. Bernard doth fauour or disfauour Card. Bellarmines opinion concerning the Popes power to vse the temporall sword in case a temporall King will not vse it at the Popes command and whether D. Schulckenius hath sufficiently confuted the answere which I did make to the aforesaid authoritie of S. Bernard 4 Thus therefore I answered in my Apologie d Nu. 196. seq that the words of S. Bernard doe only signifie that both the materiall and the spirituall sword doe belong in some sort to the Church and are subiect vnto hir not for that the ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the Ecclesiasticall or that the Church hath by the law of God any power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good but because Christian Princes being children of the Church are bound and consequently the Church may command them and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell them therevnto in defence of their holy mother the Church to vse the temporall sword Wherfore although the Church when she hath present need hath power to command or forbid the vse of the materiall sword or rather without any positiue or constitutiue command of the Church Secular Princes are bound in that case to vse it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Church hir selfe hath dominion right or power to vse the corporall sword seeing that to command the vse thereof and to vse it hir selfe are farre different things as I haue shewed before c Num. 99. yea and the very words of S. Bernard doe plainly shew as much For otherwise if the Church that is as shee consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power should haue the dominion of the materiall sword and might vse it in order to spirituall good it might by the law of God be drawne forth and vsed not only for the Church but also by the Church not onely with the hand of the souldier but also of the Priest which neuerthelesse S. Bernard doth affirme to be against our Sauiours command who commanded S. Peter to put vp his sworde into the scabberd 5 Wherefore I doe not mislike that very exposition if it be rightly vnderstood which Card Bellarmine him selfe gathereth from those words of S. Bernard who in this very place as you haue seen doth affirme that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface did by those words signifie that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword as a temporall Prince hath per se and properly the materiall sword and because the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidens to command temporall things in order to spirituall good but not to punish temporally by way of coercion but only spiritually as I haue often declared therefore the Pop-hath power to command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 6 Therefore the temporall sword according to the opinion of S. Bernard doth belong to the Pope and is called his sword for that when the necessitie of the Church doth require it is to bee drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the souldier but not of the Priest at the becke indeede or direction of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour By which last words S. Bernard doth signifie that the Emperour in vsing the temporall sword for the necessitie of the Church is indeed to bee directed by the Pope for that the Pope ought to declare when the
Church hath necessitie but the vse it selfe of the sword doth immediately depend vpon the Emperors command to whose command the souldiers in vsing the temporall sword are immediately subiect 7 But what if the Emperour shall refuse to vse the temporall sword at the Popes becke or direction Hath therefore the Pope according to S. Bernards opinion power to draw it forth himselfe or can the Emperour by the Popes authoritie be depriued of the dominion thereof No truly But because he doth not keepe that promise which he hath giuen to the Church and contrarie to the law of God hee doth not relieue the necessities of the Church the Church hath power to punish him with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall punishments as I haue often said Wherefore these words of S. Bernard doe nothing fauour the Popes temporall power or his power to vse the temporall sword but rather do directly concontradict it And this very answer hath Ioannes Parisiensis * in Tract de potest Regia Papali cap. 1â— in expresse words c. Thus I answered in my Apologie 8 Now you shall see how well D. Schulckenius replyeth to this my answer I answer saith he f Pag. 386. ad num 196. that which my Aduersarie Widdrington first doth say that both the swords doe belong to the Church hee saith well but that which hee addeth that both the swords are subiect to the Church he saith not well For the spirituall sword to bee subiect to the Church doth signifie no other thing then that the Popes power is subiect to the Church which is manifestly false whereas contrariwise it is to bee said that the Church is subiect to the spirituall sword or to the power of the Pope vnlesse perchance Widdrington be of opinion that the Sheepheard is subiect to his sheepe and not the sheepe to the Sheepheard 9 Marke now good Reader the cunning not to say fraudulent proceeding of this man Hitherto he hath as you haue seene taken the Church the Christian common-wealth the mysticall bodie or spirituall kingdom of Christ to be all one and to be one totall bodie consisting both of temporall and spirituall power and compareth hir to a man compounded of bodie and soule And may it not I pray you be rightly said that all the powers both of bodie and soule are subiect to man and why then may it not also be rightly said that the spirituall sword or power is subiect to the Church But now forsooth this Doctor that hee might take an occasion to charge me with a manifest falshood will not take the Church as hee tooke it before for the whole mysticall bodie of Christ which totall bodie includeth both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof in which sense I did take the Church when I affirmed that not onely the spirituall but also the temporall sword is in some sort subiect to the Church but hee will take the Church for one part onely of this mysticall bodie to wit for all the members of the Church besides the Pope in which sense the Church is indeed sometimes taken as when the Church is compared with the Pope and it is said that the Pope is head of the Church but when the Church is compared with Christ and is said to be the mysticall bodie and spirituall kingdome of Christ the Church doth include both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof who iointly make one totall bodie whereof Christ is the head And the very like is seene in the bodie of man for when the bodie is compared with the head the bodie doth not include the head but when the bodie is compared with the soule said to be subiect to the soule that of the bodie soule is made one man then the bodie doth also include the head 10. Wherefore taking the Church as it doth signifie the whole mysticall body of Christ in which sense both Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also S. Bernard in this very place doe take it when they affirme that the materiall sword is to be drawne foorth for the Church and the spirituall by the Church it is truly said that the spirituall sword is subiect to the Church Neither doth this signifie that the Popes spirituall power is subiect to the Church for now the Church is taken as it excludeth the Pope but rather that all spirituall power which is in any member of the Church is subiect to the whole body of the Church and consequently to the Pope in whom all the power of the Church according to Cardinall Bellarmines opinion doth reside And would not D. Schulckenius thinke that I did cauill if I should say of him as hee saith of mee that he spake not rightly when in this very place hee affirmeth that Christ gaue to the Church both the swords For the spirituall sword to be giuen to the Church doth signifie no other thing to vse his owne words then that the Popes power was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to the Church which in Card. Bellarmines opinion is not only manifestly false but also an erroneous doctrine 11. I omit now that the ancient Doctours of Paris who hould that the whole body of the Church taken collectiue and not including the Pope which a generall Councell lawfully assembled doth represent is superiour to the Pope would not thinke to speake any falshood at all if they should say that Christ gaue all the power which the Pope hath also to the Church and that the Popes power is subiect to the Church and that it doth not therefore follow that the Pastour is subiect to the sheepe or the superiour to the inferiour but rather contrariwise But in very truth this was not my meaning when I affirmed that both swords are in some sort subiect to the Church for by the name of Church I vnderstood also the Pope as I declared before 12. Secondly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the ciuill power is not per se subiect to the Ecclesiasticall he doth corrupt the text of S. Bernard and of Pope Boniface the eight For when S. Bernard saith that the materiall sword is the Popes and is to bee drawne forth at his becke and direction he clearely confesseth that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword which Pope Boniface doth declare more plainely when he saith that the sword must be vnder the sword and temporall authoritie subiect to spirituall power 13. But how shamefully D. Schulckenius accuseth me of corrupting the text of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface let the Reader iudge seeing that I neither add nor diminish nor alter any one word of their text but doe say the very same words which they doe say For S. Bernard doth say that the materiall sword is the Popes and doth belong to the Pope but with this limitation in some sort to bee drawne foorth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the becke or direction of the
cap. meruit de privilegijs wherein hee declareth that no preiudice shall arise to the King of France by that Extrauagant of Pope Boniface but that all things shall be vnderstood to be in the same state as they were before that definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King and Kingdome of France Thirdly for that all the authorities which hee bringeth from holy Scriptures to proue that the Pope hath both the temporall and spirituall sword doe proue only that the Pope is the spirituall Pastour of the Church and hath spirituall power to binde and loose to iudge and punish spiritually as whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth c. and a spirituall man doth iudge all things and he is iudged by none which place some Catholike writers expound of publike and authenticall iudgments For all the other places of holy Scripture which Pope Boniface alledgeth are either taken in the mysticall and not in the literall sense as those behold two swords here and put vp thy sword into the scabard but from the mysticall sense no forcible argument can bee drawne as all Diuines doe grant to proue any doctrine vnlesse to haue that mysticall sense it be declared in other places of holy Scripture or else they make nothing to the purpose as are those words which God spake to the Prophet Ieremie Behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer the Gentiles and ouer Kingdomes that thou maiest plucke vp and destroy and waste and dissipate and build and plant not to destroy nations and kingdomes and raise vp others but by his preaching to plant virtues and destroy vices as S. Hierome expoundeth and by foretelling the destruction of Kingdomes and Nations if they doe not repent and their increase and saluation if they will bee converted Neither is the Pope S. Ieremies Successour in the spirit of prophesie neither doe wee read that Ieremie destroyed any kingdom although he fulfilled all that which he was appointed to do by Alm God 41. It is the same saith Andreas Capella vpon this place to appoint him ouer the Gentiles and to giue him a Prophet in the Gentiles as he said before I giue thee power and authoritie saith God to declare and foretell in my name as my Prophet the ruines and wastings of the Gentiles and of Kingdomes That thou threaten my enemies whom in their Countries I haue planted placed confirmed erected that I will abolish them with captiuities vnlesse they will repent And contrariwise that I will build them and plant them againe that is restore to their ancient state them whom I shall destroy and abollish if they will acknowledge their sinnes And in these words all the charge of Ieremie is comprehended and the matter of this whole booke is declared For it is a prophecie of the destruction of the City and temple and of the captiuitie of the people and of their returne from captiuity and of the reedifying of the temple and City and of the ouerthrow of other nations and kingdomes Thus Capella And the same exposition of these words hath the Glosse vpon this place Besides Pope Boniface in this Extrauagant alledgeth for Scripture that which is no Scripture to wit for the truth testifying the spirituall power hath to institute or instruct the earthly power and to iudge it if it shall not be good which words are not to be found in the holy Scripture 42. Lastly there is no more account to be made of the authoritie of Pope Boniface the eight for this his doctrine in this point touching the Popes temporal authoritie ouer temporall Princes if we take him as a priuate Doctour deliuering his opinion then of an other Doctour as well learned as he was who holdeth with the Canonists that the Pope is direct Lord King of the world not only spirituall but also temporall for that Pope Boniface was of this opinion that the Pope hath direct power not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls Whereupon he wrote to Philip the faire King of France that he was subiect to him in spirituals and temporalls and that all those who should hold the contrary he reputed for heretikes and that the kingdome of France by reason of the Kings disobedience was falne to the Church For which words Pope Boniface is taxed by Ioannes Tilius x In Chron. ad annum 1302. Bishop of Meldune by Robertus Guaguinus y Lib. 7. in Philippo Pulch. by Platina z In vita Bonifaci◠octaui and others of great pride impudencie and arrogancie Whereupon Paulus Aemilius who doth otherwise greatly fauour Pope Boniface writeth thus * In Philippo Pulchro Pope Boniface did add at which all men did marmaile that the King of France ought to reuerence the Pope not only in sacred manner and by Episcopall right as a Father of our soules but he ought also to acknowledge him as his Prince by ciuill Iurisdiction and in prophane matters and dominion All this being considered as also that all the words of that Extrauagant are so generall that they may be vnderstood as well if not better of the Popes direct dominion in temporalls as of his indirect power to dispose of temporals which is only in order to spirituall good what great reckoning is to be made of this cōstitution of P. Boniface it being withal reuersed by P. Clemens the 5. who next but one succeeded him I remit to the cōsideration of the iudicious Reader Chap. 10. Wherein the similitude of Pope Innocent the third who compareth the spirituall and temporall power to the Sun Moone is examined 1. THe sixt and last argument which Card. Bellarmine bringth to proue the sbiection of the temporall power to the spirituall is taken from the authority of Pope Innocent the third who in cap. Solitae de maioritate obedientia doth wel saith he a In tract contra Barcl c. 13. in fine compare the spirituall temporall power to the Sun Moone Therefore as the moone is subiect to the Sun for that she receiueth light from the Sun the Sun is not subiect to the Moone for that the Sun receiueth nothing from the Moon so also a king is subiect to the Pope the Pope is not subiect to a king 2. But first this similitude doth not proue that the temporall power it selfe is subiect to the spirituall or which is all one that a temporall King is subiect to the Pope in respect of his temporall power which he doth not receiue from the Pope but in respect of the light of faith which a temporall King receiueth from the spirituall power And therefore as the Moone when she is eclypsed in opposition to the Sun doth not loose that little light which according to the doctrin of the Philosophers and astronomers she hath of her owne nature and not deriued from the Sunne so temporall Princes when of Catholikes or Christians they become heretikes or infidells and are in opposition to the Pope do not loose
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.
his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before those times b See aboue part 1. cap. 6. nu 24. yet considering that this doctrine hath not as yet bene defined by the Church and consequently is not a certaine and decided point of faith but hath euer bene and is euen to this day vehemently impugned by many learned Catholikes truely that Catholike must be a man either of a strange conscience or of a weake vnderstanding who considering the question touching the Popes power to depose Princes to be disputable and as yet not decided by the Church for that there hath euer bene saith Azor c Azor. a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one part and the Bishops of Rome on the other touching this point can perswade himselfe that it is lawfull to depose or thrust a King out of his Kingdome which he lawfully possesseth so long as the controuersie betwixt the Pope and temporall Princes touching this point remaineth vndecided 143. For it is manifest according to the knowne and approued rule of the law which is also grounded vpon the light of reason that no man can lawfully be thrust out from the possession of that thing which he rightfully and lawfully possesseth vntill the controuersie betwixt him and his Aduersary touching that thing be decided by the Iudge And for this reason as I coniecture Card. Bellarmine and some fewe others of his Society haue of late yeares bene so vehement to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a Point of faith and not to be called in question by any Catholike foreseing belike that if they granted it to be disputable and a thing in controuersie among Catholikes they must consequently grant that the Popes power to depose Princes is onely titulus sinere and can neuer be lawfully put in practise much like to the title which one hath to a faire Pallace whereof an other man is in possession which neuerthelesse he shall neuer by dispossessing the other lawfully enioy vntill the Iudge hath decided his title And therefore the practise not onely touching the murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also touching the deposing them or thrusting them out of the possession of their kingdomes and the doctrine thereof may and ought by all good Catholikes to be detested abhorred and abiured from their hearts although by vertue of the words and by force of the disiunctiue coniunction or following the verbe may it sufficeth as I shewed before to abiure the whole disiunctiue position as hereticall that one onely part of the disiunction be abiured as hereticall 144. So as thou seest good Reader both that the probabilitie which I mainetaine is not onely pretended but true and reall and also to render backe Mr. Fitzherberts words what he gaineth by his wrangling and concealing the chiefe points of my opinion and doctrine seeing that the further hee goeth the further hee bewrayeth his want both of learning and sincerity intangleth himselfe still in an inextricable labyrinth of absurdities whiles hee seeketh to intangle the consciences of Catholikes in the snares of his pretended new Catholike faith which for that it is end euer hath beene euen from the very first broaching thereof impugned by learned Catholikes as a new inuented doctrine preiudiciall to the Soueraigntie of temporal Princes and not acknowledged by any one of the ancient Fathers cleerely conuinceth that it is not Catholike Neither can that man be accounted a true Catholike who with Catholike faith which cannot be subiect to errour beleeueth that doctrine which is doubtfull disputable vncertaine and not Catholike as is this which teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes And truely if I should perceiue my Catholike faith to rely and depend vpon so weak a ground and foundation as is the Popes authority to depose Princes or any other such like disputable question I should scarce thinke my selfe to be a true Catholike and to haue a true Catholike and supernaturall but onely a pretended Catholike and supernaturall faith 145. By which also the iudicious Reader may easily coniecture what manner of exceptions Mr. Fitzherbert can take against the other clauses of the oath seeing that these obiections which he hath made against this clause which he only impugneth notwithstanding that he vaunted in the beginning of this chapter that he would proue my explication of this clause to be a friuolous euasion an extrauagant interpretation and also absurd euen by my own grounds I haue euidently conuinced to be weake and vnsound and himselfe by handling the matter so insufficiently guilfully bitterly as he hath done but farre more spitefully itself former chapters charging me with â—cogging scoffing 〈◊〉 gibing for being absurd ridiculous foolish malicious â—â—â—pious impudent heretike and no good child of the Catholike Church and vsing such like slaunderous and disgracefull tearmes to be void of learning sincerity charity and also Christian modesty And this may suffice also for this point FINJS Faults escaped IN the Epistle num 9. l. 20. there p. 14. l. 37. I confessè p. 19. l. 24. write p. 20. l. 23. reasons p. 39. l. 4. Parisioners p. 55. l. 20. Secular l. 34. the cause p. 67. l. 9 lawes p. 78. l. 12. to none p 80. l. 34. S. Dominick p. 90. l. 4. Eisengrenius p. 100. l. fift p. 140. l 5 had had p 144 l 25 although p. 145. l. 31. put out the comma p. 148. l. 13. adde in the margent m cap. 6. p. 158. l. 22. that Christian p. 164. l. 25. intention p. 175. l 14. subiect to the. p. 179. lin 10. 11. the spirituall power In the Adioynder p. 13. l. 26. hereticall p. 38. against the 18. line adde in the margent n num 23. p. 41. l. 29. sense p. 57. l. 21. but in the. p. 76. l. 35. may bee COurteous Reader In the Appendix to my Supplication to the Popes Holinesse Pag. 123. L. 15. I affirmed M. Wilson who made the English Martyrologe wherein Fa. Garnet and Fa. Holdcorne are put for Martyrs to bee a Iesuit for that I was so informed by two credible persons But because I haue heard since that one confidently auerre that although he doth wholly depend vpon the Iesuits and is directed by them yet he is not as yet a Iesuite in habit I desire that the word Iesuite in that place thou wilt account for not written and I haue caused it to be blotted out in the Booke which I sent to his Holinesse But wherefore the Iesuites are desirous to haue certaine persons who either by vow or promise doe wholly depend on them and are at their dispose not to take their habit for a time but to liue in the world like Lay-men or Secular Priests I shall perchance haue occasion to declare hereafter