affair As according to Cardinal Bellarmine he brav'd Philip the I st King of France to shew that he exempted none But nothing does so evidently discover that one cannot acknowledge the Pope to be infallible but that at the same moment we must acknowledge him likewise above Kings in Temporals as that famous Decision of Pope Boniface the VIIIth has done in the Bull Unam Sanctam approv'd by Leo the Xth in the Council of Lateran and the use which the favourers of the Roman Court make of this Bull to establish its pretensions There this Pope defines That both the one and the other Sword appertains to the Church and to the Pope That the Temporal Sword is subordinate to the Spiritual and the Temporal Authority to the Authority Spiritual That if this Spiritual power deviate from the right it must be judg'd by the Spiritual authority That this power was bestow'd on S. Peter and his Successors and That whoever resists this Subordination of Power resists Order in establishing two Principles like the Manichees Whence he concludes that it is necessary to Salvation that every humane power should submit it self to the Bishop of Rome Cardinal Bellarmine a Iesuite in his Book against Barclay concerning the Power of the Pope proves by this Bull that Kings are subject to the Pope in Temporals and this Doctrine is certain and most indubitable Now that it is saies he a thing constant and evident that the Sovereign Bishop may for just causes be Iudge of Temporals and sometimes depose Temporal Princes we prove by the Extravagant Unam Sanctam de majoritate obedientia which shews us that Sword is subordinate to Sword that is that the Temporal Authority is below the Spiritual and that if the Temporal neglect his duty it shall be judged by the Spiritual And for fear it should be objected that Clement the Vth seems to have revok'd this Bull by the Extravagant Meruit de privilegiis he prevents the Objection by saying that Clement the Vâ—h did not revoke the Bull of Pope Boniface but advertis'd onely that this Bull of Boniface had defin'd nothing new and had onely reviv'd the ancient obligation which men have to obey and submit themselves to the Apostolicall See in the manner he had before declar'd and which this Bull does observe that is to say as well in Temporal things as Spiritual Alexander Carrerius of Pavia in a Book intituled De potestate Primi Pontificis adversus impios Politicos Of the power of the Sovereign Bishop against the impious Politicians which is the name he gives to the French and particularly the Parliament proves by the same Bull that the Superiority over Kings in Temporals is an Article of Faith This Power of the Pope saies he over the Temporals of Kings is confirm'd by the testimony of Jeremiah See I have this day set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms to pull down and to destroy c. as 't is also decided by the Extravagant Unam Sanctam where 't is said that if the Temporal power deviate from the right it shall be judged by the Spiritual declaring that every humane creature is subject to the Bishop of Rome and that this is necessary to Salvation Therefore Boniface writ to Philip King of France in these terms Know that you are subordinate to us both in the Temporal and Spiritual and we do hold and declare them Hereticks who maintain the contrary For there are three marks whereby to distinguish matters of Faith The first is When the Decrees of a Synod are couched in these terms If any one affirm such or such a thing let him be accursed The second when it saies that those who maintain the contrary shall be Excommunicate ipso facto And the third when those of the contrary opinion are reputed and held for Hereticks In fine Cardinal Baronius having in a certain place mentioned the very Bull concludes that none do deny this Determination of Boniface unless such as are excluded from the Church Haec Bonifacius saies he cui assentiuntur omnes nisi qui ab Ecclesia excidit And very well argu'd it were if to be a member of the Catholick Church it were necessary to believe the Pope infallible since there is nothing more trifling and absurd then those Subterfuges which some Authors retire to to put themselves under covert from this Bull because they would fain support the Pope's Infallibility but dare not maintain his Temporal Sovereignty in France The chief of these is Doctour Duval who in his Treatise of the Power of the Pope avows that Boniface the Eighth did establish his Superiority over the Temporalty of Kings through the whole body of his Bull but saies that in all the Bulls there is nothing save the Conclusion which is of Faith and that the Conclusion of this in particular imports onely that every creature is subject to the Pope which is true saies he as it relates to Spirituals Certainly if the Authority of Kings had need of so pitiful a Reply one would conclude it built on a very weak foundation Nullas habet spes Troja si tales habet For what appearance of Reason is there in this learned Doctor 's Solution 1. How does he pretend we should believe that a Pope who makes a Bull onely to establish his Superiority over Temporals which is the thing contested and not over the Spirituals which no body does dispute and that he who speaks throughout his whole Bull of this Superiority in Temporals should in the last line form a Conclusion different from the Principles which he has establish'd and that we are onely to regard this last line 2. The word subesse indifferently signifying a subjection in Temporals as well as in Spirituals is it not clearly express'd and determin'd to Temporals by all that precedes it 3. How shall we ever comprehend what a Bull means but by the way it was then understood when it was made as well by those who oppos'd it as those who defended it and do not we know the troubles which then disturb'd all France and the Church caus'd by this pretence of the Pope maintain'd by his Partisans and contested by all the French 4. In fine has not Boniface himself explain'd his own words by another Bull shorter then this which he sent to King Philip in these terms Scire te volumus quòd in Spiritualibus in Temporalibus nobis subes aliud credentes Haereticos deputamus Whence Carrerius as we have already seen concludes well supposing the Pope infallible that those who disagree concerning the Pope's Superiority over the Temporals of Kings are Hereticks And the French of those times without amusing themselves with Monsieur Duval's Sophistry answered after another manner and sufficiently testified that the opinion of Infallibility was not so much as known in France See an Act of the whole Kingdom against these Bulls of Boniface VIIIth as 't is inserted in the first Tome of the Liberties of the Gallican Church
Of You Sir our most Noble Lord by the Grace of God King of France the people of Your Kingdom supplicate and desire because it behoves them so to doe that You preserve the Sovereign Freedom of your Kingdom which is that You own and acknowledge no Sovereign on the Earth over Your Temporals but God alone and that You give all the World to understand that Pope Boniface does manifestly erre and commit a most notorious mortal sin in sending You word by his Letters and Bulls that himself was Sovereign of Your Temporals c. and those who should believe the contrary he esteem'd as Hereticks Also that You cause to be declared that we are bound to hold the Pope himself an Heretick and not You good King and all the liege people of Your Kingdom who have ever believed and do believe the contrary The same Protestation is to be seen in several Acts inserted in that Collection which Mons. du Puy has made of the difference between King Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface where you 'l see how Pope Boniface's Bulls were then explain'd and what was the opinion of France touching Infallibility 'T is in vain to strive to make any other replies to these kind of Popes Decrees then such as the French of that Age did before us For as there 's nothing to which the Court of Rome aspires with greater passion then to this Temporal Empire so neither is there any thing which the Popes have establish'd with so much industry Cardinal Bellarmine summs up no less then 18 since Gregory the VIIth to our times who manifestly attributed to themselves this right as they call'd it of deposing Kings and chastising them temporally even to the privation of their States viz. Victor the III d Urban the II d Paschal the II d Gelasius the II d Calixtus the II d Alexander the III d Innocentius the III d Honorius the III d Gregory the IXth Innocent the IVth Boniface the VIIIth Clement the VIth Paul the II d Iulius the II d Paeul the III d Pius the Vth Gregory the XIIIth and Sixtus the Vth He counts to 16 or 17 Kings and Emperours against whom Popes have pretended this right of Sovereignty as a debt due to them amongst which there are 5 French Kings Philip the I st Philip the Fair Lewis the XIIth Henry the III d and Henry the IVth Baronius mentions also the Excommunication of a world of Germans who are not yet well agreed concerning the Pope's Power by which it appears that they alwaies pretended to make it an Heresie when at any time they were the strongest party Nor is there any thing more frequent in these Bulls then their menacing Kings and Princes to deprive them of their States in case of Disobedience Which universally betraies that Passion which the Court of Rome has to infuse this belief into the minds of the People But if one could forget those other enterprises of Rome against our Kings which are founded upon this pretented Superiority as this Superiority is upon Infallibility since France has so universally hindred their effects yet we cannot but remember that which made us lose Navarre because the wound is yet bleeding Ferdinand had no other pretext to swallow it up from Iohn d' Albret Great-Grandfather to Henry the Great besides a Bull which he obtain'd of Iulius the II d against the King and Queen of Navarre importing Privation of their Kingdom for having assisted Lewis the XIIth whom it call'd Schismatick and as having denied passage to the Army which Ferdinand King of Arragon would have sent into France to assist the King of England in the conquest of Guienne I know very well that Cardinal du Perron to render this Doctrine of the Power of Popes over the Temporals of Kings less odious to the French tells us that the real cause of the loss of the Kingdom of Navarre was the breach of the Alliance which the King of Navarre had with Ferdinand King of Arragon which Ferdinand pretended to have been establish'd on condition that if the Kings of Navarre should violate it the Kingdom of Navarre should again revert to the Spaniards who had render'd it by deed in Writing to the race of Albret and that Pope Iulius's Excommunication was neither the true Cause nor real Pretence but a certain tail of a Pretence which though Ferdinand had made no use of he had notwithstanding pretended that the Kingdom of Navarre appertain'd to him and consequently possess'd it But I know as well too that there is nothing worse founded then this answer as Mons. du Puy has made appear by most invincible proofs in his Treatise of the Right of the King to the Kingdom of Navarre For he does there prove by the Spanish Historians themselves that Ferdinand during the Usurpation and whiles he liv'd had onely the Title by the Pope's Excommunication to justifie his Arms. He shews how Ferdinand having swallow'd up this Kingdom 1512 and being press'd by the King of Navarre 1513 to doe him reason defended his possession by no other right but by that of the Excommunication and that in the two most authentick Acts on this subject one whereof is the Will and Testament of Ferdinand by which he bequeaths the Kingdom of Navarre to his Daughter Iane Queen of Castile and the other of the Union of that Kingdom to that of Castile it is expresly signified that Iohn d' Albret and Catharine his Wife had been depriv'd of it by the Pope for having adher'd to the Schism of the French Kings against Pope Iulius the II d and that the Pope had given him this Kingdom to dispose of as he pleas'd I omit the other proofs Which sufficiently shews that the Pope's Bull was no tail of Pretext but indeed the onely and sole Pretence of that unjust Usurpation which continues to this very day In the second place there is nothing more absurd then to say that the Spaniards had never rendred the Kingdom of Navarre to the race of Albret but with this written Caution That if their Successors should violate the Alliance the Kingdom should revert to the Spaniards For Iean d' Albret on whom was the Usurpation was the first of Albret's race who possess'd the Kingdom How then could it be said that the Spaniards had render'd it to Albret's race who before never enjoy'd it And supposing we did take the word render'd for given it is no less false that the Spaniards were they of Arragon or Castile gave this Kingdom to the race of Albret who in no sort held it of the Spaniards but by the Marriage of Catharine who succeeded King Francis Phoebus his Brother and Francis Phoebus to Elianor his Grandmother wife of Gastion de Foix and sole superviving Daughter of Blanch Queen of Navarre which Lady had espous'd Iohn King of Arragon the Father of Ferdinand who being born of another Venter had nothing to doe with Navarre So as this pretended Caution can be no other then a
it expedient when they become negligent of their duties when they are incapable to govern and their persons burthensome to their Kingdoms He adds That the Apostles were not subject to the secular Princes but de facto onely not de jure and in summe that since the Pontifical Majesty had been establish'd all other Potentates were become but his Vassals So soon as ever this Book appear'd in France the Sorbon knowing that the Doctrine was invented and publish'd for the universal destruction of Civil Polity and particularly the Monarchy of France which was at that time governed by the most Christian most clement and just King Lewis the XIIIth that in treading the steps of their Ancestors she might testifie her zeal and affection as well towards this Religious Prince as towards the whole most Christian Kingdom and at the same time satisfie that which all honest men requir'd of her resolv'd to examine the two Chapters of this Book of Santarel 30 and 31 where this matter was treated of And on the 1 of April 1626. having first heard the Deputies report and consider'd the several Opinions of all the Doctors she condemn'd the Positions being the common Opinion of the Iesuites for a novel false and erroneous Doctrine repugnant to the Word of God and that renders odious the dignity of the Pope opens a gap to all Schism derogates from the Supreme Authority of Kings which depends on God alone disturbs the publick tranquillity tends to the ruine of Kingdoms States and Republicks debauches Subjects from that Obedience and Submission due to their Sovereigns inciting them to Factions Rebellions Seditions in summe to commit Parricides against the persons of their natural Princes This Censure approved by the whole Body of the University of Paris and the rest of the Universitics of France was authoriz'd also by a famous Decree of Parliament of the 13. March 1626. which declared the Propositions contain'd in this Book of Santarel false scandalous and seditious as tending to the subversion of Sovereign Powers ordain'd and establish'd by God and to the stirring up of Subjects against their Princes withdrawing their Obedience inducing them to attempt against their Persons and States disturbing of the publick peace and order'd that the Book should be torn and burnt and that the Iesuites should be oblig'd to disavow and detest it and to approve the Censure of the Sorbon This vigorous resistence of the Parliament and Sorbon has of late render'd the Iesuites a little more reserv'd in producing to the world this pernicious Doctrine But as they never abandon what they have once undertaken they have invented a way of establishing it after a more dextrous but more dangerous manner for daring no more to propose it grossly and in terminis they work more subtily to introduce the Principles on which it depends by necessary consequence wisely judging that if once by their artifice they can but deceive the vigilancy of our Magistrates and the Sorbon they shall easily make the People swallow it when-ever they please and that as a Truth indubitable which they will shew by a necessary consequence from what they have already made pass for a most Catholick Verity This is that which the Iesuites have done in maintaining that famous Thesis of the 12 December 1661 as a Catholick Truth repugnant to the Greek Heresie concerning the Primacy of the Pope namely That Jesus Christ hath given to all Popes whenever they shall speak è Cathedra the same Infallibility himself had as well in matters of Right as in those of Fact And that we might not imagine there were any great mystery in this condition When they should speak out of their Chair Cùm loquerentur ex Cathedra they expresly declare that this Condition does not concern the Pope's speaking in the head of a General Council And in proposing for example for one Constitution made ex Cathedra the two Constitutions on the Five Propositions they give us clearly to understand that they do not pretend that to the end the Pope should speak from his Chair it were necessary for him to assemble so much as a Council of the Bishops of his Province as the other Popes did or that he should consult the College of Cardinals as they have since done enterprising nothing how inconsiderable soever but by the advice of their Brethren De consilio Fratrum but that 't is sufficient for him to speak in his Bulls or from the Constitutions and Decrees which use to be pasted up on the Gates of S. Peter and in Campo de Fiori this being the onely solemnity which at Rome they pretend does render them sufficiently authentick and that without so much as thinking it necessary they should be receiv'd and publish'd in the Provinces See now to what a height the Iesuites pretensions are come All that the Popes say in their Bulls and Constitutions as well on matters and questions of Fact as those of Right is to be look'd on as indubitably true as if Iesus Christ had himself avow'd it the Pope's Infallibility being still the same according to their reckoning on these occasions and incounters as that of the Son of God himself Now how little so ever one knows of the Fundamentals of Santarellism that is to say of the Doctrine which affirms the Pope has power to depose Kings it must needs be acknowledged that it is establish'd by this Thesis of the Iesuites and that it is after a sort made more pernicious and criminal then ever it has hitherto been For the defenders of this Doctrine so prejudicial to Kings were contented to establish this temporal power in Popes by shewing that they themselves did attribute it to themselves by several Bulls and Decrees and that so we were bound to believe them as being infallible in matters concerning Faith But there was none of them that yet durst deny but that Popes might fail and be mistaken in the exercise of this power because none of them did ever think them infallible in Questions which concern'd the Fact whereas the Iesuites now presume on both They render Popes absolutely Masters of Kings in attributing to them who by so many Bulls have defin'd their Superiority over the Temporalty of Kings the very same Infallibility with Iesus Christ even in matters of Right so as they leave a King whom a Pope had deposed no place of appeal or so much as to complain that the Pope might be mistaken in the matter of Fact upon which they had judged him worthy of so severe a punishment since by this new Doctrine of the College of Clermont he is equally infallible whether he judge in general that he has this power to depose Kings which is the Question de jure or in particular that such a King merits to be so us'd which is the Question de facto We must therefore clear these two points One that the Infallibility of the Pope in matters of Right is according to the Iesuites the establishment of his Power
mere impertinent Fable without any foundation since the Spaniards having neither render'd nor given the Kingdom of Navarre to the race of Albret they could never appose any caution or condition either in rendring or bestowing it Thirdly The Spaniards themselves could never yet produce any Treaty of Alliance between the Kings of Arragon and those of Navarre where this Condition was appos'd though besides all this it be beyond the power of Kings to annex any such Condition since they are not so Masters of their Kingdoms as to transfer them to any others then those who are their legitimate Successors Fourthly In fine 't is plainly false that ever Iohn d' Albret broke any Alliance with Ferdinand but on the contrary Ferdinand it was who invaded Navarre in the month of Iuly Anno 1512 and who made himself master of Pampelona the capital City of that State before there were any French in Navarre which compell'd Iohn d' Albret to throw himself into the arms of Lewis the XIIth with whom he was before but in ill intelligence to endeavour to maintain himself against this unjust Usurper who four months before this Treaty of Iohn d' Albret with Lewis had obtain'd a Bull of Excommunication of the Pope against the King of Navarre as falsly representing that being joyn'd with the King of France excommunicated by the holy See he deny'd the English free passage to enter into Guienne It is therefore evident that it is onely this pretended Power which the Flatterers of the Pope have of late Ages attributed to him to dispossess Kings and make Donations of their Kingdoms to him that can obtain them which has cost our Kings the Kingdom of Navarre since Ferdinand had but this pretence onely to invade it and all that the Spaniards would add to it since was never so much as in their heads because it was out of all probability And it is still true that this right is annex'd by all those who defend it to this Infallibility We see likewise that ever since this Popes have alwaies favour'd the Usurpation of Navarre as a mark of the Power which they pretend to have for the deposing of Kings This is evident by their shunning as much as possible the qualifying our King with the Title of the King of Navarre as in the Bulls of Barberin's Legation 1625 wherein the King being but simply styl'd King of France it was ordain'd by Parliament that it should be declar'd by the Pope that the quality of the King of Navarre had been omitted by inadvertency in the said Bulls and that till that were rectified the Arrest of Verification should not be delivered and the Bulls continue without execution in France But what they could not then obtain by the wise resistence of the Parliament they have now found an Expedient to obtain by the credit which the Iesuites have at Court for finding they had there wrought so great an aversion against the Iansenists that there was nothing more desir'd then their condemnation they believ'd they could make it be purchased with the loss of the Quality of King of Navarre nor were they at all mistaken in their expectation For Pope Innocent the Xth address'd his Bull to the King by a Breve wherein he onely styles him King of France and all who lov'd the State saw with grief that they receiv'd this Breve so injurious to the King with open arms You see how well the Roman Court knows how to profit on occasions and take her advantage she never lets any escape which she does not manage with a singular address But this Breve will one day prove one of its most memorable examples since under colour of ruining the poor Iansenists she has open'd a gap to establish two of the most considerable points of her Grandeur and which have indeed been the most contested in France The one is That the Pope alone may decide Poins of Faith with an infallible Authority the other That he may give Kingdoms away at pleasure as Iulius the II d gave that of Navarre to the Spaniards By all these proofs 't is evident that the Superiority of Popes above Kings in Temporals is an inseparable Position of Infallibility as to the pretence of all those Theologues who are married to the Interest of the Court of Rome especially the Iesuites 'T is also clear that the subtilty of those who have made as if they would separate them hath so little basis that it were an unworthy and dangerous prevarication in those who are oblig'd to maintain the Supreme Authority of their Prince but to reduce the Right of Kings which is certain and indubitable to so shallow and trifling a defence So as the onely means of hindring the establishment of this pernicious Consequence is to stop that so dangerous a Principle and above all not to permit the Iesuites the impudence of making it an Article of Faith and the carrying it even beyond all sorts of bounds and to an Infallibility in Questions de facto which is in summe to have given the fatal blow to the ruine of the Royal Throne This is easie to prove For Popes being once establish'd superiour to Temporal Princes in Temporals as we have shew'd they cannot fail of obtaining if once we allow them infallible in Questions de jure what defence remains there to a Prince against the stratagems of this Power but the pretence of its being possibly miss-inform'd and that it was mistaken in the grounds on which it proceeded to despoil him of his State But what means is there of opposing that pretence against a person who shall be in possession of the same Infallibility with Iesus Christ in matter of Fact What Christian is there who should dare oppose to Iesus Christ that he is mistaken and what were there more easie for a Pope then to ruine this defence since for that he had onely to declare by a Bull that he has well examin'd the Prince's Cause and that he deserves to be Excommunicated and Depos'd to oblige all the World to believe that he did merit it indeed Nor let any pretend that 't is not in these kinds of Facts that Popes are infallible For both the Principles and Reasons of the Iesuites tend to it And the benefit of the Church which is the sole foundation of this Imagination will rather incline to believe that God is bound to make the Popes as infallible in affairs so important as the subversion of Kingdoms the consequences whereof are so terrible to Religion it self as in the judgments which they make whether there are or are not Errours in a particular Book which is of it self but of very little consequence Now if the Iesuites without any reason and from an humane apprehension and fear should except these Facts they would not in the least diminish of the pernicious subjects of their Doctrine because the spirits of those who are once imbu'd with their Opinions would easily break through these weak restraints in
over Kings the other that his Infallibility in matters of Fact takes away all means from the Kings they please to depose to complain of so rigorous a Sentence For the first 't is an easie matter to convince all the world of it nor ought we to imagine it a Consequence held onely by those who profess themselves enemies to the Iesuites Doctrine and which the Iesuites disavow 't is a Consequence which they themselves derive from it which they every-where acknowledge must needs follow and which does so indeed naturally and of necessity For Popes as Iesuites themselves have learn'd us have so many waies decided that they have power to degrade Kings and dispose of their Kingdoms when-ever they judge it for the interest of Religion that if to be Catholick one is oblig'd to consider all that Popes say in their Chair that is by their Bulls as Decisions of infallible authority and Oracles pronounc'd even by Christ himself Kings their Ministers and Parliaments must either renounce the quality of Catholick or else tamely acknowledge that Kings are Sovereigns independent in respect of their own Subjects and other Princes but nothing so in regard of the Pope but that he has power to make them descend from their Throne and to resolve them into their simple Originals so as exercising a Royalty superiour to theirs it may be said of his Empire as an heathen Poet said of that of God Omne sub regno graviore regnum est All this is an infallible consequent of Infallibility as the Iesuites well prove For who can chuse but believe that Popes have the power to depose Kings if once he be persuaded that their Decisions are so many Articles of Faith when it shall be shew'd him that Gregory the VIIth has decided it in express terms in a Council held at Rome Anno 1067 according to Onuphrius Baronius and all the Iesuites Quòd Papae liceat Imperatores deponere quòd à Fidelitate iniquorum subditos potest absolvere Whence Lessius the Iesuite concludes supposing the Principle of Infallibility That this Doctrine is no problematick Doctrine but a constant Truth not to be deny'd without violation of our very Faith We must absolutely believe says he that this Doctrine viz. that the Pope may depose Kings is an undoubted truth and not such as we may believe what we please of but such an one as is intirely certain not to be contradicted without wounding our Faith And this I prove first Because these Propositions are defin'd in proper terms in the Roman Synod under Gregory the VIIth where it is affirm'd that the Pope may depose Emperours and absolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity Now a Definition made by a Pope in Council is matter of Faith This is clear now without mincing nor can it be more expresly declar'd that the power to depose Kings is a necessary consequent of Infallibility so as those Iesuites must needs be very impudent who shall after this dare to affirm that they are their Enemies who derive this sequel from their Doctrine The Iesuite Cardinal Bellarmine under the feign'd name of Sculkenius writing against Widrington proves in the same manner by this Gregorian Decree that the Pope's Superiority over Kings is an Article of Faith 'T is an Heresie saies he to affirm that the Pope as Pope and ex jure divino has not the power to depose Secular Princes of their States as oft as the publick good or some urgent necessity of the Church does require it I prove this Conclusion An Opinion becomes heretical when its contradictory is de Fide But it is de Fide that the Pope has power to depose Princes since it has been defin'd and concluded by Gregory the VIIth in a Roman Council where it saies expresly That the Pope may depose an Emperour Now who can deny this Conclusion that holds but the Principle which is That what has been defin'd and concluded by a Pope is de Fide Is not this Argument of the Cardinal invincible supposing the Maxime to be true By consequent then who can doubt but that according to the Iesuites opinion and the truth it self the power of deposing Kings is in the Pope a certain Consequence of his Infallibility The same Gregory the VIIth has so often decided the same Point that no man questions his pretence of making it an Article of Faith as may yet be seen in the Bull of the Deposition of the Emperor Henry the IVth made likewise in Council where addressing his speech to S. Peter and S. Paul he thus expostulates Now therefore exert and vindicate your power O great and most holy Princes of the Apostles that all the world may take notice and acknowledg that if you can bind and loose in Heaven you can also on Earth dispose of Empires of Kingdoms Principalities and Marquisates in summe of all mens goods and fortunes whatsoever by taking them away from those who deserve them not and by bestowing them on others For if you judge things Spiritual shall we believe you have not the power to judge of Temporal and Secular Let all the Kings and Princes of the Age learn what your grandeur is and your power and not dare to despise the Commandments of your Church and be sure to leave such prompt and lasting marks in the judgment which you exercise against Henry that his ruine be not attributed to the fate of arms or fortuitous accidents of War but to your sole and almighty power In consequence of this he denounc'd to the Emperor as from God that he should never win battel But if Popes are infallible according to the Iesuites in actions past 't is certain at least that they are not in those which are to come For never did Prince gain so many remaining Victor in more then 50 pitch'd Battels and having at the very first slain the person whom his Holiness had design'd to make Emperor in his place I could recount a number more of Passages relating to the same Pope where he argues for the same Doctrine as visibly founded in the Scripture and annex'd to the Papal dignity For 't is not imaginable that he should pretend onely this right over Emperors because the Popes had so much contributed to the re-establishment of the Western Empire On the contrary 't is perspicuous that his pretence was over all Kings and that it was built on that Supposition of his viz. that the power of the Keys contain'd in it the Temporal Superiority which made him set upon the Crown he sent to Rodulphus Usurper of the Empire this Latin Verse Petra dedit Petro Petrus Diadema Rodulpho To shew that he believ'd he had power to dispose of Kingdoms by a right pretended to be given S. Peter by Iesus Christ himself 'T is likewise on the same basis he threatned Alphonsus King of Arragon to stir up his Subjects against him if he gave him not speedy satisfaction concerning a certain