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
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
Priest but at the command of the Emperour and I also say the very same But S. Bernard doth not say that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword per se but only in some sort to be drawne forth for the Church not by the Church c. From which words it is plainely gathered that the materiall sword or temporall power is according to S. Bernard subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidons in spiritualls not in temporalls to be commanded in some case by the Priest as he is a Priest but not to be drawne forth or vsed by a Priest as he is a Priest but as he is a temporall Prince or a publike or priuate souldier In like manner I say with Pope Boniface that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but Pope Boniface doth not say that the sword is per se vnder the sword and the temporall power is per se subiect to spirituall authoritie and therefore seeing that hee doth imitate S. Bernards words as Card. Bellarmine here affirmeth he is to be vnderstood in that sense as S. Bernard vnderstood them to wit that the sword is vnder the sword in some sort and the temporall power subiect to the spirituall in some sort to be drawne foorth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church c. as I now declared 14. Thirdly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the Church hath not by the law of God power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good he speaketh too ambiguously For the law of God doth not command Ecclesiasticall men to vse with their own hand the materiall sword neither doth it so forbid them but that his lawfull for them in some cases to vse it also with their owne hand But neuerthelesse according to S. Bernards opinion Christ gaue both the swordes to the Church and by this he gaue her power to vse the materiall sword in that manner as doth beseem her to wit by the seruice or hands of others in directing Secular Princes that they draw it forth or put it in the scabard as it is expedient to the honour of God and the saluation of Christian people 15. But my words are very plaine and no whit ambiguous I say that the Church taking the Church not materially for all the members of the Church but for Churchmen formally as they are Churchmen or which is all one for the Church as it consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power are according to S. Bernards doctrine commanded not to draw forth or vse with their owne hands the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good For S. Bernards words are plaine why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which thou wast once not only counselled but cōmanded to put vp into the scabard c. But if the Pope becom a temporall Prince or a Priest do lawfully becom a Soldier to fight either in his own defence or in the defence of others which Christ did not forbid although the Church in some cases hath forbidden it neither I nor S. Bernard doe denie that the Pope as he is a temporall Prince or a Priest as he is a lawfull Souldier hath power to vse with their owne hands the materiall sword Neither did S. Bernard euer grant that the Pope as he is Pope or a Priest as he is a Priest or which is all one by his spirituall or Priestly authority hath power to draw foorth or to vse with his owne hands the materiall sword although the Pope by his spirituall power may direct and command a temporall Prince to draw it foorth and vse it when the necessitie of the Church shall require which onely D. Schulckenius in this paragraph doth affirme 16. Fourthly that is false saith D. Schulckenius g Pag. 387. which Widdrington affirmeth that the materiall sword in that onely sense doth belong to the Church because Secular Princes being children of the Church are bound to fight in defence of the Church their mother For S. Bernard doth grant much more to the Ecclesiasticall Prince when he saith Therefore it is also thine to wit the materiall sword And beneath Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword are the Churches but the materiall sword is to bee drawen foorth for the Church and the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but truly at the becke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour Where S. Bernard doth not only signifie that Souldiers or Princes are bound to draw foorth the sword for the Church but also at the becke or direction of the Priest that is with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperour 17. But anie man who readeth ouer but sleightly my answer in that place will easily perceiue that this is a meere cauill and also a plaine vntruth for that in expresse words I doe affirme that Secular Princes and Souldiers are according to S. Bernard to draw foorth and vse the materiall sword for the necessity of the Church at the becke counsell direction yea and command of the Priest which is as much as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth S. Bernard to say although S. Bernard did expressely distinguish betwixt becke and command at the becke saith he of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour whereby it is manifest that S. Bernard did not account becke and command to be all one and consequently hee did not approoue the same subordination to be betwixt Secular Princes and the Priest in vsing the materiall sword as is betwixt Souldiers and the Emperour For albeit S. Bernard by the name of becke did not onely vnderstand aduise and counsell which Christian Princes in all their weightie affaires concerning the Law of God and Christian Religion ought to demand of learned Priests and who are skilfull in the Law of God and Christian Religion but also a command to fight and vse the materiall sword in defence of the Church and Christian Religion to the obseruing of which command Christian Princes may as also I sayd by Ecclesiasticall censures bee compelled yet this command being a declaratiue command which doth onely declare a former command of God and nature and doth not make a new bond but onely declare and signifie a former obligation may rather be called a beckening and signifying that Christian Princes are by the Law of God bound in that case to draw foorth fight and vse the materiall sword then a true proper and constitutiue command which doth not onely signifie but also induce a new bond or obligation 18. And in this sense not onely Ioannes Parisiensis whom I cited before h Num. 8. doth vnderstand those words of S. Bernard at the becke indeede of the Priest but also our learned Countri-man Alexander of Hales
also by depriuing him of the sword as in the like case the Councell of Lateran often cited doth teach which one Councell is to be preferred before all the Barclaies or Iohns of Paris all men doe thinke who are not mad 28. Is not this thinke you a trim answere The question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine in this place was not concerning the Councell of Lateran wherof I will treat beneath * Part. 3. cap. 9. seq and plainely shew that notwithstanding all the clamours of my Aduersaries the said Councell hath neither defined or supposed for certaine nay or supposed at all that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes as D. Schulckenius doth here collect from thence but the question was onely concerning the authoritie of S. Bernard And I prooued clearely out of S. Bernards wordes that although the Pope as Pope hath power to command or forbid in some cases the vse of the materiall sworde yet that he hath power as he is Pope to vse it himselfe or to depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implyeth a power to vse it himselfe this I said could not be proued but rather the contrarie out of those words of S. Bernard who doth not only say that it is not fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword as D. Schulckenius would mince his words but that it is forbidden the Pope to draw foorth or vse the materiall sword Now D. Schulckenius passeth ouer S. Bernard and flyeth to the Councell of Lateran to proue that if the Emperour refuse at the Popes command to vse the materiall sword he may by the Popes authoritie bee depriued of the vse thereof whereas the present question was only concerning the opinion of S. Bernard and not what was the doctrine of the Councell of Lateran in this point whose authoritie I doe asmuch respect either as Card. Bellarmine or any other Catholike is bound to doe But it is an easie matter to wrest the words of the Councell of Lateran or any other to their purpose contrary to the true meaning of the Councell and then to crie out ô the Councell of Lateran which is to be preferred before all Barclaies and Widdringtons c. whereas we doe asmuch respect the authoritie of the Councell of Lateran or any other as they do although we doe not so much respect their ouer wrested collections which they to serue their owne turnes doe gather from any Councel or text of holy Scripture contrarie to the plaine proper and true sense and meaning of the words But to such shiftings and windings euen learned men are sometimes brought when they will make their vncertaine opinions and priuate expositions of holy Scriptures or Councells to be infallible grounds of the Catholike faith 29. Lastly but the foundation saith D. Schulckenius of Widdringtons errour is for that he thinketh that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour by reason of the faith and free promise which the Emperour gaue and made to the Pope according to the similitude which a little before he put concerning one who promised an other to spend his life and all his goods in defence of him But this foundation is false because the authoritie of the Pope ouer Christian Princes doth not proceed from their onely promise or faith which they haue giuen but from the law of God by which law the Pope is made by Christ the Pastour of all his stocke the chiefe of all his familie the head of all his body and the Rectour of all his Church Wherefore it is no maruaile if from false foundation he conclude a falshood to wit that S. Bernards words do not onely not fauour the Popes temporal power but are flat contrarie to it What I beseech you could be spoken more cleerely for the Popes temporall power then that which S. Bernard said that the temporall sword is the Popes and that both swords are the Churches and that the temporall sword ought to be drawne foorth at the Popes becke And as for Ioannes Parisiensis there is no great reckoning to be made of him whatsoeuer he saith both for that he is repugnant to the Councell of Lateran and many others and also that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and lastly for that either he denieth only the Popes direct power in temporalls or else he doth plainly contradict himselfe 30. But truely it is strange that learned men and who pretend to maintaine nothing but truth dare aduenture to auouch so bouldly and in such publike writings so manifest vntruths and which they themselues in their consciences can not but see to be plain and palpable vntruths I very often and that of set purpose did affirme in my Apologie and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and yet this man to make his Reader beleeue that I doe teach flat heresie blusheth not to affirme in an other place n Pag. 256. that I deny that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund temporall Princes in temporalls in order to spirituall good So likewise I did oftentimes in my Apologie affirme o Num. 90.91.181.223.341 and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power by the law of God and for that he is appointed by Christ to be the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Catholike Church to constraine and punish all disobedient Christians both Princes and people with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments and yet now this man to perswade his Reader that I teach heere a manifest errour is not ashamed to affirme that I am of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour in regard onely of the free promise which the Emperour hath made to the Pope And therefore D. Schulckenius neither dealeth truely nor sincerely and both deludeth his Reader and also wrongeth mee in affirming that to bee my doctrine which I expressely impugne and that to be the foundation of my opinion which hee is pleased to call an errour which I in expresse words and that oftentimes haue denied 21. For as I doe willingly grant that although a temporall Prince hath power to command and with temporall punishments to compell if neede require his temporall subiects to make and sweare an expresse promise of that true faith loyaltie and temporall allegeance which by the Law of God and nature they doe owe to their lawfull Prince yet I doe not affirme that a temporalll Prince hath power to constraine his rebellious subiects by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made but by vertue of his supreme temporall power which hee hath as hee is a supreme temporall Prince by the Law of God and nature So also I do willingly grant that although the Pope hath power to command and with spirituall punishments to compell if neede require all Christian Princes and
people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith loyalty and spirituall allegeance which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and the Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power which he hath by the Law of God and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus 32. True it is that the Reader might the better vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose of temporals and to dispose of them himselfe are very different things and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other I brought a familiar example of one who either by promise or by some other obligation and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise and cleane omitteth the other obligation is bound to dispose and giue his goods or life at anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding power which he hath ouer him and them take them away and dispose of them without his consent but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command according as by vertue either of his promise or of some other obligation he is bound to doe the other may complaine to the Magistrate that hee will punish him for his offence or cause him to performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword and to haue a power to vse it or to depriue of the vse thereof are two different things neither doth one necessarily follow from the other although the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope as Pope can vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implieth a power to vse the same but onely that the Pope being a spirituall Prince or Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor of the spirituall kingdome Church of Christ 33. Thus therefore you haue seen that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same then he hath done For although it be cleere that the temporall sword is according to S. Bernard the Popes in some sort and doth belong to the Church in some sort which words in some sort D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke direction or declaratiue command of the Pope yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes and belongeth to the Pope in some sort that it is to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier and not of the Priest at the becke indeede of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour and that our Sauiour commanded and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard do plainly shew that according to S. Bernard the Pope as Pope cannot vse the temporal sword nor constrain a temporall Prince by vsing temporall punishments which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword 34. And for D. Barclay and Iohn of Paris to omit our learned Country-man Alexander of Hales whose words I related before p Num. 18. who doe giue the very same answere which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine heere doth make very small reckoning yet I do plainly confesse that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword and to dispose of all temporals in order to spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely then he hath done Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane but onely to the particular exposition which som few especially of late yeeres who haue scraped together all the authorities of Fathers Councells Scriptures facts and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie haue wrested out the words of the said Councel contrarie to the plaine sense of the words and the common vnderstanding of all ancient Diuines who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines and those also who not perceiuing their owne errour doe accuse others of the same to alleadge in confirmation of their opinions the holy Scriptures and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning and then to cry out against their brethren who mislike their opinions that they haue the holy Sriptures and sacred Councels on their side and that therefore their doctrine is of faith and the contrary hereticall and that their Aduersaries doe oppose themselues against the holy Scriptures and decrees of the Catholike Church whereas wee doe regard with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures sacred Councels and decrees of the Catholik Church the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense not in the letter or in the expositiō of any priuate Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors which he maintained cōcerning confession and absolution of whose authoritie neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
a controuersie among Catholike Doctors to alledge for confirmation of both opinions the aforesaid authorities and proofes which neuerthelesse doth not discourage either part from maintayning their opinions as it is manifest in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope and Generall Councells the conception of our B. Lady in originall sinne and many questions concerning the Popes authoritie to dispence and now of late in the question touching grace and freewill betwixt the Dominicans and the Iesuites 20 Therefore it is rather great temeritie and extreme folly that you my Catholike Countrymen should venter your soules and whole estates vpon this my Aduersaries writings whose knowledge in Diuinitie is knowne to be but small and his desire to ease your griefes as you shall perceiue beneath d Num 81. 82. is also no whit lesse besides he handleth this controuersie which doth so greatly concerne your spirituall and temporall good or harme and your obedience due to GOD and CAESAR so vnsincerely and corruptly that either he concealeth my answers or peruerteth the true meaning of my words rather thereby to disgrace me with the Reader and to make him to haue a preiudicate conceipt of what I wrote then really and sincerely to finde out the truth and by a cleere and moderate debating of the controuersie to satisfie his Readers vnderstanding And this very argument taken chiefly from the Popes Breues which this man to terrifie and perplexe the timorous conscience of the deuout Catholike Reader vrgeth here I haue so largely answered in my Theologicall Disputation e Cap. 10 sec 2. wherein I fully satisfied this obiection taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of so many learned men who condemne the oath as contayning in it many things cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation that I thought he would haue blushed to repeat the same argument here againe so nakedly which I my selfe vrged there more plainly and strongly without making any Reply or taking any notice of the answers I made in that place thervnto For there I shewed the difference according to Vasquez doctrine between a doubtfull and disputable question and that there is neither doubt nor danger of any imprudence temeritie disobedience or of any other sinne not to obey the Popes declaratiue command when it is grounded vpon an opinion or doctrine which is not certaine but disputable for that diuers Popes haue in their Breues or Decretall letters declared and taught false and also hereticall doctrine and that the Popes declaratiue command hath no greater force to binde then hath the doctrine or opinion whereon it is grounded as Suarez whom I related in that place doth expresly affirme And thus much concerning my Aduersaries first Admonition 21 Secondly whereas Widdrington saith my Aduersarie Å¿ Num. 12. professeth not to giue for his opinion any assured and certaine proofes which may breed in the hearers or Readers a firme and doubtlesse assent but onely probable reason drawne from credible principles which may induce a probable perswasion hee sheweth euidently that his meaning is not to seeke out the truth but rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling to shew his wit labouring to maintaine paradoxes with some shew of probabilitie knowing right well that as Cicero saith there is nothing so incredible but it may bee made probable by discourse c. And what else may this man be thought to intend but to shew his wit seeing that hee pretendeth to produce no other proofe of his opinion but onely probabilitie and withall acknowledgeth that the contrarie doctrine is and hath been professed and held by almost all the learned Catholikes that euer haue written at least whose workes are now extant Is it likely then that hee meaneth to establish the truth or to quiet mens consciences by the discussion thereof No truely But rather that he seeketh as I haue said to obscure it and make it doubtfull when he can not ouerthrow it which is the most diuellish deuise that any man could inuent to impugne any point of the Catholike faith to wit not to doe it all at once but by degrees seeking to shake the foundation of it first calling it in question and then teaching it to bee but probable and consequently doubtfull to the end that the mindes of men hanging in suspence may be disposed to admit as well the errour as the truth 22 But whether I or my Aduersarie doth intend to establish the truth or rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling seeing that hee still persisteth in misinterpreting the meaning of my words and in dissembling the true state of the question concerning the modall proposition which is the maine controuersie betwixt him and me wherein although hee sheweth in deede in some part his wit yet verily he sheweth no sincere and vpright dealing I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader For first it is vntrue that I professe as my Aduersarie affirmeth to giue for my opinion no assured and certaine proofes which may breed a firme and vndoubted assent which the Reader would quickly haue perceiued if my Aduersarie had been pleased to haue entirely related my words which are these wherefore the present controuersie betweene me and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning this absolute question or proposition whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose Princes for heresie or no but concerning the modall proposition whether it bee so certaine that the Pope by Christ his institution hath such a power to depose Princes as that those who defend the contrarie opinion doe expose themselues to manifest danger of heresie errour or of any other mortall sinne Wherefore although in my Apologie I brought certaine arguments drawne from inconueniences which the Logicians call ad impossibile to proue that Christ our Lord did not grant such an authoritie to the Pope which is the son then can my Aduersarie haue to taxe me for not bringing any assured or certaine proofes but onely probable to proue that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes 26 Wherefore to establish and confirme this doctrine that it is not a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes or that it is not improbable that he hath no such power it is sufficient to answere probably all the reasons and authorities to the contrarie and to bring probable proofes which may cause a probable perswasion that he hath no such authoritie considering that according to the approued ground of all Philosophers and Diuines certaintie of one part of the contradiction cannot stand with probabilitie of the other taking probable in that sense as the Diuines doe take it and not for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie and is not truely probable for if it bee certainely true that the Pope hath power to depose it is certainely false and therefore not probable that hee hath not power to depose And therefore my Aduersarie rather seeketh to obscure the truth and to
authoritie of skilfull Physitions and not of Lawiers and in a point of Catholike Religion the authoritie of learned Catholikes and who are skilfull in points of Catholike Religion which they professe and not of heretikes and who doe not professe Catholike Religion doth make the opinion or doctrine which they approue to bee probable And therefore my Aduersarie very insufficiently not to vse those fowle words absurdly ridiculously which hee so often vseth against mee argueth from the authoritie of learned Catholikes to the authoritie of heretikes whose doctrine according to the definition of probable can neuer make the opinions which they approue in points of Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable Neither by this can any point of Catholike faith which is knowne to all learned Catholikes to bee a point of Catholike faith be easily called in question and made onely probable for that no learned Catholike will cal in question any doctrine which is cleerely knowne to be the Catholike faith and as for heretikes their authoritie can neuer make any doctrine belonging any way to Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable 51 But if there should arise any controuersie among learned Catholikes whether this or that doctrine be of faith and in what sense the words of such a text of holy Scripture or of such a Canon or Decree of Pope or Councell are to be vnderstood there is no doubt but that the authoritie of learned Catholikes may in those cases make their opinion probable although other Catholikes would be so stiffe in their owne opinion as to condemne the contrarie part of heresie errour or temeritie A manifest example hereof we haue in the Councell of Constance wherein according to Iohn Gerson and other learned men who were present at that Councell it was expressely defined that the Pope is inferiour and subiect to a Generall Councell lawfully assembled and therefore the contrarie to be flat hereticall but since that other Catholikes especially Romane Diuines haue called that Decree in question and haue endeauoured to answer therevnto affirming that it was only meant of Popes in time of Schisme or that the aforesaid Decree was not confirmed by Pope Martin in the end of the Councell which answeres neuerthelesse doe not satisfie the Doctors of the contrarie opinion I doe not thinke but that my Aduersarie will confesse that the opinion of the Romans may bee accounted probable and that the calling of that Decree in question was not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all heresie and Atheisme 52. But if it should perchance fall out that some Catholikes would be so selfe opinatiue as to affirme without any definition at all of the Church although vnder pretext of zeale and deuotion to the See Apostolike any doctrine to be of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall and other Catholikes although the farre fewer in number should deny the same especially in a matter which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar if the first part only should be permitted to write freely what they please and to taxe the other part of heresie to omit errour temeritie folly ridiculous absurditie and such like and this other part should be forbidden to defend their good names and to answere for themselues I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether this be not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and the vndoubted grounds thereof and to introduce vncertaine opinions for an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith which is to open a wide gap to heresie Atheisme and euident iniustice and to make among Christians a perpetuall dissention betwixt the Cleargie and Laity the temporall and spirituall power Now that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not by any definition at all of the Church declared to bee true my Aduersary cannot denie and that it euer hath been and is impugned by learned Catholikes and the contrarie hath euer beene and is by them approued and therefore it is truly probable and not only hath a pretence of probabilitie I will shew beneath where I will both relate the Catholike Authours who deny this authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes which only is sufficient to make their doctrine probable and also I will discouer the insufficiencie of those Replies which my Aduersary hath made against my answeres And thus much concerning the third point 53. For the fourth and last point consider Catholike Countreimen whether Mr. Fizherbert intendeth to declare vnto you plainly and sincerely this present controuersie and by a cleare explayning of the question to quiet your consciences or rather by wrangling and cauilling to obscure the difficultie and blind your vnderstandings The question betwixt him and mee at this present is whether it be a probable doctrine that the Pope hath not any power by the institution of Christ to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall power and Regall authoritie And there are two only grounds to perswade any man that this or that doctrine or opinion is truely probable The one are called intrinsecall groundes to wit the arguments and reasons which are drawne from holy Scriptures sacred Canons Theologicall reasons and such like to proue that doctrine or opinion and these groundes are proper only to learned men who are able to weigh and examine the arguments on both sides â—â—e other are called extrinsecall grounds which doe onely consist in the authority of those learned men who doe hold that doctrine or opinion because according to that which hath been said before that doctrine is trulie probable which is approued by wise and skilfull men in the art which they professe and by these onely grounds vnlearned men can be perswaded that any doctrine or opinion is truly probable 54. Now my Aduersarie seeing as he saith that all my pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authority of those Authours which I haue brought in my Theologicall Disputation and in my Apologie and partly in the sufficiencie as I suppose of my answeres to their groundes arguments and authorities yet he taketh vpon him in this Reply only to confute some of my answers to their intrinsecall grounds and for the confutation of the authorities which I bring hee remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius who as he saith hath answered particularly to euery one of them Seeing therefore that there is no sufficient way to satisfie the vnderstandings of vnlearned men that the doctrine which holdeth the Pope to haue no authoritie to depose Princes is not truely probable but by shewing that no learned Catholikes do approue the same for that vnlearned men are not able to examine the intrinsecall grounds of any Theologicall question but are only led by authoritie and extrinsecall grounds and if they once perceiue that learned Catholikes doe approue any doctrine they will presently also perceiue that doctrine to bee truly probable is there any likelihood that Mr. Fitzherbert intended to giue satisfaction to his vnlearned
is dangerous to his Maiesties safetie to haue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose his Maiesty to be so much as called in question in his Dominions thou maiest good Reader cleerely perceiue by this his last Admonition wherein thou shalt obserue the manifest fraud and falshood of this man For if Mr. Fitzherbert had either sincerely or entirely related my opinion and doctrine or else had put in mind his Reader against what kind of Aduersaries I do oppose any man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued as I obserued elsewhere i In the Admonition to the Reader before my English Purgation sent to his Holinesse which my words I thinke it not amisse to set downe heere againe that it is too too apparantly and shamefully vntrue that my manner of handling this question probably can be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie as my Aduersarie endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie not for any loue that he is knowen to beare vnto the State but to the end by all likely-hood that he and such like violent spirits may write more freely of this subiect and without being controlled or contradicted by Catholikes who as he is perswaded do little regard the writings and opinions of Protestants concerning this or any other doctrine 61. For it may bee dangerous to his Maiesty to handle a question probably against one Aduersary which will be nothing dangerous to handle it probably against another As for example if it wer agreed vpon by all Catholikes that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiestie then it would bee dangerous to his Maiestie that any Catholike should call this in question and dispute it probably but if on the contrary side all Catholikes should agree in this that it were certaine vnquestionable and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose his Maiestie and to absolue his Subiects of their Allegeance to command them to take armes against him c. then if a Catholike should call this in question or which is all one dispute it probably and maintaine that it is not certaine that the Pope hath such an authoritie but that it is questionable and probable that he hath it not no man of any sense or vnderstanding can affirme that such a manner of disputing this question probably against those Aduersaries who hold it for certaine and vnquestionable can bee any way dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie 62 Now behold the manner which I haue taken in handling this controuersie Card Bellarmine Fa Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and some other Diuines especially of the Societie of Iesus whom Mr. T. F. in euery step as though he were their creature as now he is become one of their companie doth follow haue laid this for a sure and vndoubted ground that it is a point of faith and to be beleeued as certaine and vnder paine of eternall damnation by Catholikes that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to absolue Subiects from their allegiance and therevpon to command them to take armes and raise tumults against their Prince so deposed So that you see that these men haue already laid the danger and vndoubted ouerthrow to his Maiesties Person and Crowne if the Pope should perchance depose him in that they affirme that all Catholikes are in that case bound in conscience to forsake him and to fulfill the Popes command to the destruction of his Maiesties Person and State This doctrine to wit that it is a point of faith and an vndoubted principle of Catholike Religion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to inflict all temporall punishments by way of coercion and that all Catholikes are bound in conscience to forsake his Maiestie and to take armes against him I haue taken vpon me for two principall reasons to impugne and doe not doubt clearely to maintaine the same against the clamours of Mr. T. F. or any other whatsoeuer 63 My first reason was for that it is against the truth and puritie of the Catholike Church Shee being a pillar and ground of truth that doubtfull opinions and which among Catholikes are onely in controuersie and by the Parliament of Paris haue been condemned as scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious should be enforced vpon English Catholikes as an vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike faith to the vtter ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie by men who are in no danger to loose but rather to gaine temporall aduancement by their writings My second reason was to assure his Maiestie that all English Catholikes may if they will according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be true and constant Subiects to his Maiestie and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or depriuation denounced or to be denounced against his Maiestie by the Pope whereby his Subiects should be absolued from their Allegiance or commanded not to obey him in temporall causes they may with a safe conscience also in practise marke well what I say they are bound to adhere to his Maiestie to obey him in temporall causes as still remayning their true and lawfull Soueraigne and to resist any such sentence of Excommunication or depriuation 64 The reason wherefore I affirmed that Catholikes may with a safe conscience adhere to his Maiestie and resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that it is a probable opinion and which with a safe conscience and without danger of heresie error or temeritie may be embraced by Catholikes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes nor to inflict any temporall punishments by way of coercion but that the last punishment to which the coerciue power of the Church doth extend are onely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Censures Wherefore that which my Aduersarie affirmeth that I confesse it to be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath cannot lawfully be taken is very vntrue vnles he meane that I confes it for Disputation sake or as we vsually say Dato sed non concesso it being admitted not granted for that it maketh nothing for or against the question which is in hand Therefore positiuely I neither confesse it nor deny it approue it or condemne it nor with that part of the contradiction whether it be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and whether it be probable that the Oath may not be taken doe I at this time intermeddle but whereas my Aduersaries doe so violently maintaine that it is certaine and an vndoubted doctrine of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath is repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore can not lawfully be taken I at this present doe affirme the contrarie to wit that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes and that the oath may lawfully be taken 65 But the principall reason which I brought for the securing of his Maiestie which Mr. Fitzherbert fraudulently concealeth that English Catholikes not onely may for the reason
aforesaid but also in practise are bound to adhere to his Maiestie and to resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that supposing it to be speculatiuely vncertaine whether the Pope hath any such power to depose a King or no it is an vndoubted rule k De regulis Iuris in 6◠among the Lawyers and grounded vpon the light of nature and principles of Diuinitie that in causa dubia siue incerta melior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the state of him that hath possession is the better And againe Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est Reo potiùs quà m Actori when it is vnknowne whether of the parties who are in suite hath right the defendant is to be preferred or fauoured before the plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this controuersie concerning the authoritie of Popes and Soueraigntie of Kings that is from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kings call it temporall or spirituall as you please for sure it is that the effect is temporall hath been vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kings and Subiects and therefore it can not bee said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authoritie although wee should grant that power right or authoritie may be said to bee possessed it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow in speculation concerning the Popes power to depose Princes yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Kings and the right of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not hee can not with a good conscience endeauour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which hee lawfully possesseth 66 Wherevpon in the end of my Apologie I inferred this conclusion whereof also in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I made mention And therefore if either Pope Prince or any other of a forraine countrey should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the kingdome which he possesseth this controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided hee should contrarie to the rules of iustice doe that Prince most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect can not be excused from manifest treason what soeuer opinion in speculation he doth maintaine concerning the Popes temporal power who should in practise vnder pretence perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duely also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne endeauour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced against him by the Pope 67 But because D. Schulkenius hath endeauoured to confute that reason which I out of the aforesaid rule of the Law In causa dubia melior est conditio possidentis I brought to proue that no man in practise can with a safe conscience obey the Popes sentence of depriuation so long as this controuersie concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth vndecided I will briefely declare how insufficiently he obiecteth against that reason First therefore he affirmeth l Cap. 15. ad nu 468. pag. 629. pag. 633. ad nu 470. that this doctrine to depose Princes is not doubtfull or in controuersie among Catholikes but it is certaine and of faith and none but heretikes and schismatikes doe defend the contrarie and therefore that rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the possessour is the bettter can not bee applyed to the Popes power to depose Princes But how vntrue this is and also how slanderous and iniurious it is to many learned Catholikes especially to the most Christian Kingdom of France I will cleerely shew beneath in so much that for this cause onely if there had been no other his book was deseruedly burnt publikly at Paris 68 Secondly D. Schulkenius would seeme to affirme that the aforesaid rule In causa dubia c. In a doubtfull or disputable cause the state of him who hath possessions is the better is not a rule of the Law for that saith he I finde not in the rules of the Law In a doubtfull or disputable cause but In a like or equall case the state or condition of him who hath possession is the better But it D. Schulkenius will cauill about the words and not regard the sense I may likewise say that hee findeth not in the rules of the Law In an equall or like case but in an equall and like cause the state of him who hath possession is the better But because cause and case like equall doubtfull vncertaine and disputable haue all one sense for that if two causes or cases be doubtfull vncertaine or disputable they are like or equall in that therefore I regarding the sense and not the words did rather vse the words doubtfull vncertaine and disputable then like or equall both for that the former words doe declare the sense of the rule more plainely and also because Diuines in alledging that rule of the Law do commonly vse the word doubtfull as it may be seene in Dominicus Sotus m Lib. 7. de instit q. 3. ar 2. Ioannes Azor n Tom. 1. lib 2. Instit cap. 18. Ioannes Salas o Dis 1. sec 9. de Legibus and Gabriel Vasquez p Prima secundae disp 65. cap. and therefore Vasquez citing the aforesaid rule taketh like and doubtfull for all one The aforesaid rule saith hee q Disp 66. ca. 7 In dubijs seu in pari causa c. In doubts or in a like cause the state of the possessor is the better c. 69 Wherefore D. Sculckenius perceiuing that this exception of his against the aforesaid rule is only verball will not absolutely deny the rule but answereth thirdly that if there be such a rule of the Law as without doubt in sense there is both in the Canon r De Regulis Iuris in sexto and Ciuill Law and in expresse words the Diuines and Lawiers doe cite it so it doth make for the Pope s ff De regulis Iuris regula 170. In pari causa c. who hath beene for many hundred yeares in possession to iudge and depose Seclar Princes especially in a cause belonging to faith But this answere of D. Sculckenius is very insufficient For first although we should grant that right power or authoritie may bee said to be possessed in that sense as Possession is taken in Law whereas according to the Lawiers as Molina the Iesuite obserueth t De Iustitia tract 2. Disp 12. possession properly is onely of corporall things and right power and such like spirituall things are onely said to bee as it were possessed yet supposing that it is a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable question whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no as 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
r Lib. 5. de Rō Pont. cap. 1. yet this rather confirmeth mee in my opinion For if his doctrine which denieth that the Pope as Pope hath power to depriue iuridically and by way of sentence temporall Princes of their dominions and to vse the temporall sword had beene thought in those daies to haue beene hereticall or erronious as now Card. Bellarmine and some few other Iesuites will needes haue it to be it is like that he should also haue beene compelled to recall that doctrine and that those learned Authors who write of heresies as Alphonsus de Castro Prateolus Genebrard D. Sanders and others would for the same haue taxed him and Marsilius of Padua as also Albericus and those many Schoolemen and Doctours related by Trithemius and Almaine who did defend the same doctrine with some note of heresie or errour which seeing they haue not done it is a manifest signe that they did not account that doctrine for hereticall or erronious that the decree of the Councel of Lateran which was long before any of these mens daies and which was also so publike and registred in the corps of the Canon Law was not in those times vnderstood in that sense as Card. Bellarmine now of late for before in his controuersies he made small reckoning of that authority for that he cleane omitteth that decree yet bringing many particular facts of Popes yea of Pope Innocēt the third in whose time and by whose authoritie that Councell was held and some few others without sufficient proofe as I will shew beneath ſ Part. 3. ca. 9. seq will needes haue that decree to be vnderstood 36. Neither is that true which D. Schulckenius affirmeth that Ioannes Parisiensis in acknowledging That when the Pope doth becken the Emperour ought to exercise the iurisdiction of the secular power for the spirituall good But if hee will not or if it doth not seeme to him expedient the Pope hath no other thing to do because he hath not the materiall sword in command but onely the Emperour according to S. Bernard dooth either speake of the direct power of the Pope to vse them materiall sword or else contradict himselfe when afterwards hee writeth that the Pope may per accidens depose the Emperour by causing the people to depose him For Ioannes Parisiensis in that his Treatise de potestate Regia Papali doth expresly impugne both the direct and indirect coerciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence and iuridically with temporall punishments affirming as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth that Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment is the last which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict For although it belongeth to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to bring men backe to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not this but according to the way or meanes giuen him by God which is by excluding from the Sacraments and the participation of the faithfull 37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore contradict himselfe in affirming that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people For although he be of opinion as I shewed before t Part. 1. ca. 2. that the people haue in some cases a coerciue power ouer their Prince and in some cases may depose him and consequently the Pope may in those cases if it be necessarie to the good of the Church command the people and with spirituall punishments compell them to vse their coerciue power and so the Pope may be said to depose a Prince per accidens by meanes of the people with which philosophicall question I will not at this time as I often said intermeddle yet concerning the Popes coerciue power to vse him selfe the temporall sword or to depose the Emperour by way of iuridicall sentence which is not repugnant to his authoritie to depose by meanes of the people if the people haue any such authoritie to depose which many learned Diuines to whose opinion the ancient Fathers seeme to assent as I haue signified heretofore doe denie u in my Apologie nu 411. and here part 1. cap. 3. nu 5. Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellarmines opinion and expressely affirmeth that the Pope hath no power to depriue iuridically or by way of sentence temporall Princes of their kingdomes but only to inflict by way of coercion or constraint Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authoritie and also the Reply which D. Schulckenius hath made therevnto 38 Now to the authoritie of Pope Boniface the 8. I answer first that his words are to be vnderstood in that sense as I expounded S. Bernard whom hee as Card Bellarmine affirmeth did imitate to wit that the temporall power is in order to spirituall good or which is all one in spirituall things subiect to the command of the spirituall power and that shee is to be instructed by the spirituall not absolutely in temporall gouernment but in Christian faith and religion and that if shee goe out of the way or erre in things belonging to Christian faith and religion shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual but with spirituall not temporall punishments And in this sense it is very true that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but by this it is onely signified that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in meere temporals subiect to the spirituall command and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours 39 Secondly although Pope Boniface should vnderstand those words in this sense that temporall Princes are not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls subiect to the Popes power both to command and also to punish temporally yet his authoritie herein as he is Pope for as he is a priuate Doctor it is no greater then of other Doctors is not of any great weight considering first that as well obserueth D. Duvall x De suprema Rom. Pont. potest part 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263 a learned Schoole-Diuine one of the Kings Readers in the Colledge of Sorbon although Pope Boniface doth make mention both of the spirituall and temporall sword and in the progresse of his Constition doth say that the temporall sword is vnder the spirituall yet in the definition or conclusion which chiefely as in the decrees of Councells is to be regarded seeing that this onely bindeth to beleeue this onely hee pronounceth in generall but we declare say define and pronounce that it is necessarie to the saluation of euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome But in what manner all men must be subiect it is not expressed in this definition and therefore not to contradict this definition it is sufficient to affirme that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to command and to punish s piritually 40 Secondly for that this Extrauagant was recalled by his Successour Pope Clement the fift in
of murthering them for hitherto he hath so cleared the difficulty as you haue seene that I could not haue desired more cleare and fit examples of propositions to confirme my interpretation of those words deposed or murthered then which he himselfe hath brought to impugne it Thus therefore he writeth r Nu. 14. 15 16. 55. But to cleare all this difficulty and to make it manifest that the doctrine of the deposition of Princes is abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall no lesse then the supposed doctrine of murthering them I shall need no other testimony or proofe thereof then such as may be taken from the Oath it selfe considered euen according to those rules which Widdrington himselfe hath laid downe for the interpretation of it in the very first chapter of his Theological disputation Å¿ Nu 7. where he professeth to approue follow the doctrine of Suarez t Lib. 6. de leg cap. 1. in that point as being conforme to the common opinion of Lawyers and Diuines Now then he teacheth there out of Suarez that if there be any doubt or question concerning the sense of a law or any part thereof three thinges are specially to be pondered for the exposition of it to wit the words of the Law the minde or intention of the Law-maker and the reason or end of the Law and the same he saith are also to be considered for the clearing of any difficulty or doubt in the Oath 56. As for the words of the Law and consequently of the Oath he saith that they are to be vnderstood according to their proper and vsuall signification and the reason is saith Suarez because words are so to be vsed in common speech and much more in Lawes which ought to be cleare but it is euident that the words of the clause now in question being taken in their vsuall and proper signification doe make clearely for vs wherein I dare bouldly apâ—eale to the iudgement of any discreet Reader for albeit such a sense as Widdrington imagineth may be picked or rather wringed out of thâ—se words yet no man at the first sight will or can reasonably conceiue any thing else thereby but that either part of the disiunctiue clause is abiured alike 57. For although the coniunction or is sometimes taken for a copulatiue yet it is commonly a disiunctiue and hath that signification diuers times euen in this oath as any man may see that list to obserue it As for example to omit all the rest which might be vrged to this purpose the very next words before deposed or murthered are excoÌ„municated or depriued wherein it is cleare that or hath the ordinarie and proper signification of a disiunctiue giuing to vnderstand that whether Princes be onely excommunicated or depriued also of their right to their States by the Pope it is impious and hereticall doctrine to teach that they may be either deposed or murthered Also the same is to be noted in the words immediatly following to wit by their Subiects or any other wherein it is signified that neither Subiects nor yet any other may depose or murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope and the like may bee exemplified in the other clauses of the Oath at least thirty times for so often I doe find the coniunction or therein and alwaies vsed properly for a disiunctiue as also I dare say it is vsed in like maner and in the same sense aboue a hundred times in the same Statute Thus M. Fitzherbert 58 Now you shall see how well he hath cleered this difficulty His Argument if it bee reduced to a syllogisticall forme is this The words of euery law and consequently of this Oath are according to Suarez whose doctrine I approue heerein to bee taken in their proper and vsuall signification but those words deposed or murthered c. according to their proper and vsuall signification doe signifie that the supposed Doctrine of murthering Princes and of deposing them is abiured alike therefore in the aforesaid clause I abhorre detest and abiure c. the doctrine of deposing and of murthering Princes which bee excommunicated c. are both abiured as hereticall The Minor hee proueth two wayes first by appealing to the iudgement of euery discreet man who at the first sight can reasonably conceiue nothing else but that either part of that disiunctiue clause is abiured alike Secondly for that although the Coniunction or bee sometimes taken for a copulatiue yet it is commonly a disiunctiue and hath the ordinary and proper signification of a disiunctiue and in this oath wherein it is found at least thirty times and in the same statute aboue a hundred times it is alwaies vsed properly for a disiunctiue coniunction 59 But first obserue good Reader those words of my Aduersary the supposâ—d doctrine of murthering Princes For a little beneath u hee affirmeth that murder implyeth alwaies an vnlawfull act yea and a mortall sinne whereby hee doth seeme to insinuate that the Oath speaketh onely of murther in this sense and supposeth that some Catholikes doe teach that it is lawfull to murther Princes as murther implyeth an vnlawfull act whereas no Catholike can bee so ignorant as to imagine much lesse to teach that it is lawfull to doe an vnlawfull act or to commit a mortall sinne seeing that God himselfe cannot giue authority to murther any man as murther implyeth an vnlawfull act or a mortall sinne Neither did his Maiesty and the Parliament take murther only in this sense but by the word murthered they vnderstood that all killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope was directly and absolutely an vnlawfull act and they did suppose that some Catholikes taught this doctrine that the Pope in order to spirituall good might giue leaue to take away the liues of wicked and hereticall Princes by all those waies either publike or secret and vnawares by which temporall Princes in order to temporall good haue authority to take away the liues of rebellious subiects who either cannot at all or at least cannot without great preiudice to the publike good of the State bee publikely apprehended or condemned 60 And I would to God that this doctrine were onely a supposed doctrine and had neuer beene taught or approued by any Catholike But alas it cleerely followeth from the doctrine and grounds for the Popes power to depriue Princes of all their temporall right and authority as I most euidently did demonstrate in my Apologie x nu 43. seq to which my Argument D. Schulckenius y Pag. 144 I answer saith hee that so many wordes are needlesse for whither al these doe tend euery man seeth neither is it hard to solue the Arguments let them passe as not making to the matter onely answereth with a transeat or let it passe as impertinent to the matter and the same is sufficiently confirmed by the same D. Schulckenius z Pag. 413. 4â—0 in other places of his booke and before him
Rom. 12. wee being many are one body in Christ is examined 1. ANd to begin first with the vnion Card. Bellarmine bringeth two arguments to proue that the ciuill and spirituall power doe make one bodie or common-wealth among Christians The first is taken from the authoritie of S. Paul Rom 12. and 1 Cor 12. where hee affirmeth that wee being many are one body in Christ from whence Card Bellarmine concludeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont cap. 7. that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit the Church 2 To this argument I answered in my b Num 83. 89. 165. Apologie that the meaning of S. Paul in those places is that all Christians both Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes as they are by Baptisme regenerate in Christ doe truly properly and formally make one bodie one house one cittie one communitie or common-wealth to wit the spirituall kingdome the mysticall body or the Church of Christ which Card. Bellarmine defineth c Lib. 3. de Ecclesia cap 2. to be a companie of men vnited together by the profession of the same Christian faith and Communion of the same Sacraments vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastours and especially of one Romane Bishop Christ his Vicar in earth But S. Paul doth not say that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one onely bodie communitie or common-wealth and not also two or that Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes not considered as Christians or regenerate in Christ by baptisme but as by their naturall birth or ciuil conuersation they are subiect to temporal Princes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe not also truely properly and formally make also another politike bodie another citie another communitie or common-wealth to wit the earthly Kingdomes of the Christian world 3. Wherefore it is not true that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes considered diuerse waies do not make diuerse kingdoms or common-wealths but one onely as Card. Bellarmine concludeth out of S. Paul for as by Baptisme they are regenerate in Christ and subiect in spirituals to Christ his vicegerent in earth they make one body or common-wealth which is the spirituall kingdome and Church of Christ and this onely doth signifie S. Paul by those words we being many are one body in Christ but S. Paul doth not denie that all Christians as by their naturall birth or ciuill conuersation they are subiect to Secular Princes in temporall causes which subiection Baptisme doth not take away doe also truely properly and formally make another body or common-wealth which are the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world Cleargie men saith Card. Bellarmine himselfe d Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the ciuill common-wealth and againe e Ibid. cap. 30. if one saith he consider the companie of Lay-men not as they are Christians but as they are Citizens or after any other manner that companie cannot bee called the Church and consequently they must bee another common-wealth and therefore the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power or Clerkes or Laikes in whom the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe reside being considered diuerse waies doe not truely properly and formally make one only body but two distinct seuerall bodies or common-wealths although materially and accidentally vnited in that maner as I declared before f Cap. 1. nu 3. and presently will declare more at large 4. And whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that although the temporall and spirituall power doe make two partiall common-wealths yet they doe also make one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head and to affirme the contrary is saith he against the Catholike faith hee doth heerein both speake contrarie to his owne principles and to that which hee knoweth to bee the Catholike faith and hee must also of necessitie fall into the Canonists opinion which he before g Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. a cap. 2. pretended to confute concerning the Popes spirituall and temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world For if the Church of Christ be one totall body or common-wealth compounded of Ecclesiastical and ciuill power as a man is compounded of soule and body for this is that similitude which so much pleaseth Card. Bellarmine and is therefore so often inculcated by him it must necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope in whom according to his other grounds all the power of the Church doth reside must haue truly properly and formally both temporall and Ecclesiasticall power as a man who is compounded of soule and bodie hath truely properly and formally in him both the soule and bodie and all the powers and faculties of them both And what else is this I pray you then to maintaine with the Canonists that the Pope as Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch and that hee hath truely properly and formally both ciuill and spirituall authority And yet Card. Bellarmine in other places doth expressely affirme that the Pope as Pope hath onely spirituall and not temporall power 5 The Diuines saith he h In his book against D. Barclay ca. 12. pag. 137. doe giue to the Pope temporall and spirituall power onely in the Dominions of the Church which power in the patrimonie of S. Peter Pope Innocent in cap. per venerabilem doth call a full power ouer other Christian Prouinces they doe giue to the Pope onely a spirituall power which of it selfe and properly doth regard spirituall things but temporall things it doth regard as they are subordained to spirituall And therefore when we speake properly we say that the Pope hath power in temporals but not that he hath temporall power as he is Pope Now how these two can stand together that the spirituall and temporall power among Christians doe make one entire and totall body whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head as the body and soule doe make one man and yet that the Pope as Pope shall haue no temporall power which in it selfe is temporall but onely spirituall athough in some cases extended to temporall things seeing that these two powers doe truely compose the Church of Christ and consequently both of them are truly and really in the Church which they compound and so likewise in the Pope in whom all the power of the Church doth reside I remit to the iudgement of any sensible man 5. Besides what a more flat contradiction can there be then this to say that the ciuill and spirituall power among Christians doe compound indeede two partiall but one entire and totall common-wealth which is the Church of Christ or Christian common-wealth as hee heere affirmeth i In his Schulckenius cap. 5. pag. 195. and withall that the Church of Christ or the Christian common-wealth is compounded onely of spirituall authoritie as a little beneath hee affirmeth in these words d In his Schulckenius cap