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
of Princes be in this sense hereticall as in very deed it is And therfore all those Priests who then were Prisoners in Newgate and the Gate-house and now are in Wisbeech being examined by his Maiestses Commissioners vpon certaine articles and did directly answere to the questions which were propounded did agree in this that it was directly and absolutely murther for any man to take away the life of his Maiesty and that the Church could not define it to be lawfull for any man to kill his Maiesty although for the point of deposing some of them answered otherwise some others declined the question and many of them did insinuate that as yet this point touching the Popes power to dedose Princes is not defined by the Church 103 And although his Maiesty doth alleage much more Scripture to condemn the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then I doe for the condemnation of violent attempts against their persons yet it cannot be denied both that his Maiesty might haue brought more plaine and pregnant places against the doctrine of murthering Princes if he had thought it needefull and not supposed it to be a manifest vntruth and condemned by the common coesent also of Catholikes and also that all those places which his Maiesty bringeth to proue that Subiects owe ciuill obedience to temporall Princes and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall power to depriue Princes of their temporall kingdomes doe more forcibly conclude against violent attempts against their sacred persons and against the Popes Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power to murther kill or depriue them of their liues which bloody punishments Ecclesiasticall mildnes doth so much abhorre 104 Neither doe I take the word murthered in that clause of the oath as it doth formally signifie an vnlawfull act and a mortall sinne and in that sense apply the precept Thou shalt not kill to this clause of the oath as my Aduersary would perswade the Reader but I take murthered in that clause as it doth denote materially the killing of Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope And I affirme that the killing of such Princes is directly and absolutely a mortall sinne and is that murther or killing which is forbidden by the law of God and nature reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and especially in those two places which the Author of the English Dialogue whose obiection against that clause of the oath I tooke vpon mee to answere did alleadge The first place 1 Reg. 26. Kill him not for who shall extend his hand against the Lords annointed and be innocent doth more particularly belong to Princes The second place Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill is common also to priuate men and therefore much more to be ayplyed to the killing of Princes 105. Neither is it necessary as I obserued in my Appendix y part 2. sec 5. nu 4. against Suarez to make that position contained in the Oath to be hereticall and repugnant to Gods commandement that the Scripture should haue added Thou shalt not kill Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope It is sufficient that all killing both of priuate men and much more also of temporall Princes who haue in their handes the materiall sword it selfe and supreme power to kill or saue is vnlawfull and forbidden by this precept which is not warrantable either by other places of holy Scripture or declared by the Church to bee lawfull and to haue sufficient warrant Now it is manifest that neither the Church nor any one Catholike Doctour euer taught that the Popes sentence of excommunication or depriuation although wee should grant that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes by way of sentence doth giue sufficient warrant or authority to Subiects to kill their Prince for that the Popes sentence of depriuation doth at the most by the consent of all Catholicks depriue a Prince of his right to reigne but not of his corporall life or of his right to liue And thus much concerning the antecedent proposition 106 Lastly to say something also concerning the consequent although as you haue seene I do vtterly deny that to abiure this doctrine and position as hereticall That Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other it is necessary by vertue of the forme of words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification and by force of the coniunction disiunctiue or that both parts of the disiunction bee abiured as hereticall neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant that by vertue of the matter both parts of that disiunctiue proposition may bee truely abiured as hereticall if wee take the word hereticall as by many learned Catholickes it is taken in a true proper and vsuall signification For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue out of Alphonsus de Castro z Lib 1. aduershaereses cap 8. Didaecus Couerruuias a Lib. 4. variaâ— resolut cap. 14. and others that although the Catholike Church can determine of heresie yet an assertion is not therefore heresie because the Church hath defined it but because it is repugnant to Catholike faith or which is all one to that which is reuealed by God For the Church by her definition doth not make such a position to be heresie seeing that it would be heresie although she should not define it but the Church causeth this that by her censure she maketh knowne and manifest to vs that to bee heresie which before was not certainly knowne whether it might iustly be called heresie or no. 107. For the whole Church excluding Christ her principall head hath not power to make a new Ariicle of faith which neuerthelesse shee might doe if she could make an assertion to be hereticall But that the Church hath not power to make a new Article of faith it is conuinced by manifest reason For euery assertion is therefore called Catholike for that it is reuealed by God Seing therefore that diuine reuâ—lation doth not depend vpon the approbation or declaration of the Church the declaration of the Church doth not make that Catholike which is reuealed by God The Church therefore doth determine that this is reueaâ—ed by God but shee doth not make that which is reuealed by God to be true for if such a verity be called Catholike for that it is contained in holy Scriptures seeing that such a verity to bee contained in holy Scriptures doth not depend vpon any humane will but vpon God alone the Author of those Scriptures it is manifest by this reason that the Church can doe nothing at all that such a truth doth belong to faith For the holy Scriptures haue this of themselues that wee are bound to beleeue them in all things Wherefore the Church defining any thing to be of faith although she doth certainly define and cannot erre yet by her definition she doth not make that truth to bee Catholike faith For shee did therefore define that truth to be Catholike because that truth
forth for the Church but the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but indeed at the booke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour 2. The pricipall words of Pope Boniface besides those which hee doth imitate out of S Bernard are That in the Catholicke and Apostolike Church whereof Christ is the head and S. Peter his Vicar and in her power there be two swords the spirituall and the temporall as we are instructed by those words of the Gospell Behold heere that is in the Church two swords c. And that the sword must be vnder the sword the temporall authoritie subiect to the spirituall power For the spirituall the truth so witnessing hath to instruct the earthly power and to iudge if it be not good So of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical power the prophesie of Ieremy is verified behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer nations and Kingdomes and the rest which follow Therefore if the earthly power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by the spirituall power but if the inferiour spirituall power goeth out of the way shee shall be iudged by her superiour but if the supreme goeth out of the way shee can be iudged by God alone and not by man according to the testimony of the Apostle That the spiritual man iudgeth all things and he is iudged by none From all which Card. Bellarmine who only relateth S. Bernards words and affirmeth that Pope Boniface doth imitate the same doth conclude that the meaning of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface was to affirme that both the temporall and spiritual sword are in the power of the Pope that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword and because the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall therefore the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 3. Thus you see what S. Bernard and Pope Boniface doe affirme and also that Card. Bellarmine inferreth and concludeth from their words And although to this which Card. Bellarmine inferreth from their words there needeth no answere at all for that I doe willingly grant all that which he doth inferre to wit that the temporall sword is subiect in some cases to the commanding power of the Pope and that the Pope may command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church shall require it seeing that the question betweene mee and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning the Popes commanding power and whether the Pope may command a King to vse the temporal sword in the necessitie of the Church as I haue oftentimes in all my Bookes expresly affirmed but concerning the Popes coerciue power and whether if a King will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope hath power to vse it himselfe and may constraine a King not only with spirituall but also with temporal compulsion and punishment to fulfill his iust command Neuerthelesse because Card. Bellarmine hath now in his Schulckenius taken some exceptions against the answere which I made in my Apologie to the authortie of S. Bernard and consequently of Pope Boniface who as hee saith doth imitate S. Bernards words I thinke it not amisse to set downe my answere and also his Reply that so the Reader may cleerely perceiue whether S. Bernard doth fauour or disfauour Card. Bellarmines opinion concerning the Popes power to vse the temporall sword in case a temporall King will not vse it at the Popes command and whether D. Schulckenius hath sufficiently confuted the answere which I did make to the aforesaid authoritie of S. Bernard 4 Thus therefore I answered in my Apologie d Nu. 196. seq that the words of S. Bernard doe only signifie that both the materiall and the spirituall sword doe belong in some sort to the Church and are subiect vnto hir not for that the ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the Ecclesiasticall or that the Church hath by the law of God any power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good but because Christian Princes being children of the Church are bound and consequently the Church may command them and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell them therevnto in defence of their holy mother the Church to vse the temporall sword Wherfore although the Church when she hath present need hath power to command or forbid the vse of the materiall sword or rather without any positiue or constitutiue command of the Church Secular Princes are bound in that case to vse it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Church hir selfe hath dominion right or power to vse the corporall sword seeing that to command the vse thereof and to vse it hir selfe are farre different things as I haue shewed before c Num. 99. yea and the very words of S. Bernard doe plainly shew as much For otherwise if the Church that is as shee consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power should haue the dominion of the materiall sword and might vse it in order to spirituall good it might by the law of God be drawne forth and vsed not only for the Church but also by the Church not onely with the hand of the souldier but also of the Priest which neuerthelesse S. Bernard doth affirme to be against our Sauiours command who commanded S. Peter to put vp his sworde into the scabberd 5 Wherefore I doe not mislike that very exposition if it be rightly vnderstood which Card Bellarmine him selfe gathereth from those words of S. Bernard who in this very place as you haue seen doth affirme that S. Bernard and Pope Boniface did by those words signifie that the Pope hath per se and properly the spirituall sword as a temporall Prince hath per se and properly the materiall sword and because the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidens to command temporall things in order to spirituall good but not to punish temporally by way of coercion but only spiritually as I haue often declared therefore the Pop-hath power to command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword when the necessitie of the Church doth require it 6 Therefore the temporall sword according to the opinion of S. Bernard doth belong to the Pope and is called his sword for that when the necessitie of the Church doth require it is to bee drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the souldier but not of the Priest at the becke indeede or direction of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour By which last words S. Bernard doth signifie that the Emperour in vsing the temporall sword for the necessitie of the Church is indeed to bee directed by the Pope for that the Pope ought to declare when the
Church hath necessitie but the vse it selfe of the sword doth immediately depend vpon the Emperors command to whose command the souldiers in vsing the temporall sword are immediately subiect 7 But what if the Emperour shall refuse to vse the temporall sword at the Popes becke or direction Hath therefore the Pope according to S. Bernards opinion power to draw it forth himselfe or can the Emperour by the Popes authoritie be depriued of the dominion thereof No truly But because he doth not keepe that promise which he hath giuen to the Church and contrarie to the law of God hee doth not relieue the necessities of the Church the Church hath power to punish him with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall punishments as I haue often said Wherefore these words of S. Bernard doe nothing fauour the Popes temporall power or his power to vse the temporall sword but rather do directly concontradict it And this very answer hath Ioannes Parisiensis * in Tract de potest Regia Papali cap. 1â— in expresse words c. Thus I answered in my Apologie 8 Now you shall see how well D. Schulckenius replyeth to this my answer I answer saith he f Pag. 386. ad num 196. that which my Aduersarie Widdrington first doth say that both the swords doe belong to the Church hee saith well but that which hee addeth that both the swords are subiect to the Church he saith not well For the spirituall sword to bee subiect to the Church doth signifie no other thing then that the Popes power is subiect to the Church which is manifestly false whereas contrariwise it is to bee said that the Church is subiect to the spirituall sword or to the power of the Pope vnlesse perchance Widdrington be of opinion that the Sheepheard is subiect to his sheepe and not the sheepe to the Sheepheard 9 Marke now good Reader the cunning not to say fraudulent proceeding of this man Hitherto he hath as you haue seene taken the Church the Christian common-wealth the mysticall bodie or spirituall kingdom of Christ to be all one and to be one totall bodie consisting both of temporall and spirituall power and compareth hir to a man compounded of bodie and soule And may it not I pray you be rightly said that all the powers both of bodie and soule are subiect to man and why then may it not also be rightly said that the spirituall sword or power is subiect to the Church But now forsooth this Doctor that hee might take an occasion to charge me with a manifest falshood will not take the Church as hee tooke it before for the whole mysticall bodie of Christ which totall bodie includeth both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof in which sense I did take the Church when I affirmed that not onely the spirituall but also the temporall sword is in some sort subiect to the Church but hee will take the Church for one part onely of this mysticall bodie to wit for all the members of the Church besides the Pope in which sense the Church is indeed sometimes taken as when the Church is compared with the Pope and it is said that the Pope is head of the Church but when the Church is compared with Christ and is said to be the mysticall bodie and spirituall kingdome of Christ the Church doth include both the Pope and all other inferiour members thereof who iointly make one totall bodie whereof Christ is the head And the very like is seene in the bodie of man for when the bodie is compared with the head the bodie doth not include the head but when the bodie is compared with the soule said to be subiect to the soule that of the bodie soule is made one man then the bodie doth also include the head 10. Wherefore taking the Church as it doth signifie the whole mysticall body of Christ in which sense both Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also S. Bernard in this very place doe take it when they affirme that the materiall sword is to be drawne foorth for the Church and the spirituall by the Church it is truly said that the spirituall sword is subiect to the Church Neither doth this signifie that the Popes spirituall power is subiect to the Church for now the Church is taken as it excludeth the Pope but rather that all spirituall power which is in any member of the Church is subiect to the whole body of the Church and consequently to the Pope in whom all the power of the Church according to Cardinall Bellarmines opinion doth reside And would not D. Schulckenius thinke that I did cauill if I should say of him as hee saith of mee that he spake not rightly when in this very place hee affirmeth that Christ gaue to the Church both the swords For the spirituall sword to be giuen to the Church doth signifie no other thing to vse his owne words then that the Popes power was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to the Church which in Card. Bellarmines opinion is not only manifestly false but also an erroneous doctrine 11. I omit now that the ancient Doctours of Paris who hould that the whole body of the Church taken collectiue and not including the Pope which a generall Councell lawfully assembled doth represent is superiour to the Pope would not thinke to speake any falshood at all if they should say that Christ gaue all the power which the Pope hath also to the Church and that the Popes power is subiect to the Church and that it doth not therefore follow that the Pastour is subiect to the sheepe or the superiour to the inferiour but rather contrariwise But in very truth this was not my meaning when I affirmed that both swords are in some sort subiect to the Church for by the name of Church I vnderstood also the Pope as I declared before 12. Secondly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the ciuill power is not per se subiect to the Ecclesiasticall he doth corrupt the text of S. Bernard and of Pope Boniface the eight For when S. Bernard saith that the materiall sword is the Popes and is to bee drawne forth at his becke and direction he clearely confesseth that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword which Pope Boniface doth declare more plainely when he saith that the sword must be vnder the sword and temporall authoritie subiect to spirituall power 13. But how shamefully D. Schulckenius accuseth me of corrupting the text of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface let the Reader iudge seeing that I neither add nor diminish nor alter any one word of their text but doe say the very same words which they doe say For S. Bernard doth say that the materiall sword is the Popes and doth belong to the Pope but with this limitation in some sort to bee drawne foorth for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the becke or direction of the
to constraine her to change her gouernment and to depose Princes and to institute others when she can not otherwise defend her spirituall good And in this manner are to bee vnderstood the words of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface c. Thus Card. Bellarmine So that according to Card. Bellarmine S. Bernards words doe proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command the materiall sword but also to vse it vnlesse the materiall sword is not to be comprehended vnder the name of temporalls And therefore not I but D. Schulckenius doth of set purpose decline the difficultie and also vntruly affirmeth that Card Bellarmine did not intend to proue in his second argument that the Pope hath power to vse the materiall sword but onely that the materiall sword is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power seeing that Card Bellarmines second argument doth most clearely shew the contrarie 23 But marke now how clearely D. Schulckenius doth either contradict S. Bernards words and him selfe or else fowly equiuocate and confirme the answer which I gaue to the authoritie of S. Bernard I affirmed that S. Bernards words are so to be vnderstood that it is lawfull for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men to command in some cases the vse of the materiall sword but that to vse the materiall sword themselues as they are Ecclesiasticall men they are forbidden by the expresse command of Christ Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth k Pag. 390. that for as much at appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword he assenteth altogether to S. Bernard that it doth not beseeme Ecclesiasticall men to vse the materiall sword but onely the spirituall and thus much onely those words of our Sauiour doe signifie Returne thy sword into the scabbard and those of S. Bernard why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which once thou wast commanded to put into the scabard For here it is not meant of the law of God by which Ecclesiasticall men are absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword seeing that it is manifest that in some cases and especially in defence of themselues and of their countrey this is lawfull but of the command of God by which Cleargie men are instructed and taught that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall but with the spirituall sword Thus D. Schulckenius 24 But if D. Schulckenius meane that Ecclesiasticall men are onely for decencie which implyeth no command not to vse the materiall sword he plainly contradicteth S. Bernard to whom neuerthelesse hee affirmeth altogether to assent who expressely auerreth that the Pope in S. Peter was not only counsailed but commanded not to vse the materiall sword And therefore S. Bernards words can not otherwise be vnderstood but that Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men and the Pope as Pope are by the command of Christ absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword for S. Bernard did not intend to affirme that Ecclesiasticall men if they become temporall Princes or being considered as they are priuate men or citizens and parts or members of the temporall common-wealth are by the command of Christ forbidden to vse the materiall sword and to fight in defence of their owne persons or of their Countrey 25 Wherefore those last words of D. Schulckenius to wit that S. Bernards saying is to be vnderstood of the command of God by which Cleargie men are instructed and taught that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall but with the spirituall sword are somewhat equivocall For if D. Schulckenius doe onely vnderstand of such an instruction which implyeth no command of Christ but onely a certaine decencie counsell and aduise for that it doth not beseeme the perfection of those men who haue a spirituall vocation to fight with the materiall sword hee plainly contradicteth himselfe and also S. Bernard himselfe for that hee acknowledgeth a command of God whereby Cleargie men are instructed c. but this instruction supposeth no command of God S. Bernard also he contradicteth who expressely speaketh of a command whereby Ecclesiasticall men are by the law of Christ and not only of the Church forbidden to vse the materiall sword which command of Christ as I said before can bee no other then that Ecclesiasticall men can not as they are Ecclesiasticall men vse the materiall sword for that although the Ecclesiasticall power doth according to S. Bernard and the truth extend to the beckoning or declaratiue commanding of the materiall sword in some cases yet it doth not extend to the vsing thereof but this power to vse the materiall sword doth proceed from the law of nature or the ciuill power who doe giue authoritie to euery man whether he be a Clerke or Laike in case at least wise of necessitie to vse the materiall sword in defence of his owne person or of his countrey And if D. Schulckenius only intend to signifie thus much by those last words of his which in very deede can not be otherwise vnderstood vnlesse wee will make them repugnant to themselues hee doth fauour not contradict confirme and not impugne my answer 26 Fiftly obserue good Reader how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift off the last and principall Answer which I made to the authoritie of S. Bernard I granted as you haue seene before that the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to beckon or command the Emperour to vse the materiall sword when the necessitie of the Church shall require and to punish him with Ecclesiasticall punishments if he shall refuse to obey his iust command or becke and I affirmed that this is the most that can be gathered from those words of S. Bernard But if the Emperour should refuse to vse the materiall sword at the Popes command or becke I affirmed that it could not be inferred from that authoritie of S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope could vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of his temporall dominion or power to vse the materiall sword for this were to vse and to dispose of temporalls and implyeth a power to vse and draw forth the materiall sword it selfe which S. Bernard expressely denyeth to the Pope and that therefore S. Bernards authoritie doth nothing fauour but clearely contradict the Popes power I doe not say to command temporalls but to dispose of temporalls and to vse temporalls as Ioannes Parisiensis and Alexander of Hales l Num. 18. did before affirme Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius replyeth m Pag. 393. in this manner 27. Thou didst runne well who hath hindered thee so soone not to obey the truth For now thou dost not follow S. Bernard but William Barclay as thy Master If that the Emperour shall refuse to vse the sword at the becke of the Pope in great necessitie of the Church it is not indeed fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword but hee hath power to constraine the Emperour first with Ecclesiasticall punishments and afterwards
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
was Catholike and if it had not beene Catholike the Church defining it to bee Catholike should haue erred therefore it was Catholike and reuealed by God before the Church defined it Wherefore the Church cannot make a new Article of faith but that which before was true faith but not certainely knowne to vs the Church by her definition maketh it knowne to vs. 108 In like maner wee haue this from the Church to know certainly which is diuine Scripture and we are bound to account that to be diuine Scripture which the Church hath defined to be diuine And although shee doth certainely define and cannot erre yet shee doth not make by her definition that Scripture to bee diuine for therefore shee hath declared it to be diuine because it was truely diuine and if it had not beene before diuine Scripture the Church would not haue declared it to be diuine Wherefore although that assertion which is condemned by the Catholike Church to be contrary to Catholike faith and to bâ—e accounted heresie was also heresie before the definition of the Church yet before the Church did define it the maintainers of that opinion were not called heretickes because it was not knowne whether that opinion was contrary to Catholike faith but now after the definition of the Church they shall bee called hereticks whosoeuer shall approue and maintaine that opinion not for that their opinion was not before false contrary to Catholike faith and heresie but because this name of heretickes beeing infamous and appertaining to that most heinous crime doth require a certaine pertinacy and rebellion departing from the definitions of the Catholike Church which could not truely be accounted at that time when it was doubtfull and disputable and the Church had not defined whether that opinion was repugnant to Religion and faith 109. In this sense therefore it may be said that the Church hath power to declare an assertion to be Catholike and to appertaine to Catholike faith to this effect that after the definition of the Church the said assertion is so manifestly of faith that he is to be accounted an obstinate hereticke who defending the contrary shall depart from that definition although before the definition of the Church the said assertion albeit was most true and Catholike yet by reason of the doubt and controuersie touching that point hee could not iustly be called an heretick who should allow and follow the contrary position And what hath bene said if there be any doubt or controuersie touching any text of holy Scripture and the true sense thereof is proportionally to be vnderstood if there be any doubt or controruersie touching any definition of the Church and the true sense thereof as wee see there is now a controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris touching the definition of the Councell of Constance concerning the Superiority of the Church or a Generall Councell aboue the Pope and among many other Catholikes touching the decrees and declarations of diuerse other Generall Councells and now lately touching the sense of those words of the Councell of Lateran Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord c. Which some Catholikes of late haue greatly vrged to proue the Popes power to depose Princes whereof beneath b Part. 3. cap. 9. seq we will discourse at large 110. From this doctrine which neither Mr. Fitzherbert nor any other can proue to be improbable it cleerely followeth that heresie being a falshood repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probability wherewith one is perswaded that such a doctrine or position is false and repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probabilitie hee may abhorre detest and abiure that doctrine for hereticall And consequently it followeth that if it be lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure for impious damnable and false doctrine repugnant to truth contained in the word of God this Doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other which position for that it concerneth practise and not onely speculation is in very deed false impious damnable and repugnant to truth contained in holy Scriptures and ought so to be accounted not onely by those who are of opinion that the Pope hath not power to depriue Princes but also so long as this question remaineth vndecided and in controuersie by those who doe speculatiuely thinke that hee hath authority to depriue them it is lawfull also to abiure it for hereticall And this I hope may suffice for the defence of my first and principall answeare and for the confutation of M. Fitzherberts Reply therevnto 111. The Second answere which I haue heard many Catholikes giue to the aforesaid obiection of the Authour of that English Dialogue against the word hereticall contained in this clause of the oath and which Answeare Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to ouerthrow I related c Cap. 5. Sec. 2. nu 28. 29 in these words The second principall answeare which some of our Countrimen doe make to the aforesaid obiection is gathered from the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine who expounding d Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. that sentence of Pope Gregory the first e Lib. 1. epist 24. I confesse that I doe receiue the foure first Councells as the foure bookes of the Gospell affirmeth that the aduerbe as doth import a similitude and not an equality as that of Matth. 5. Be you perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect For in like manner these Catholiks doe answeare that those words I doe abhorre detest and abiure as heretical c. doe not import an equality but a similitude and that in common speech they doe onely signifie that I doe exceedingly detest that doctrine And so wee vsually say I hate him as the diuel I loue him as my brother not intending thereby to affirme that the one is in truth a Diuel or the other my brother 112 Now to omit the word murthered as though there were no mention at all made in the oath concerning the murthering of Princes and to speake onely of deposing them these men affirme that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other supposing that this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is not yet decided is in their iudgments a false and seditious proposition and that it hath some similitude with heresie not for that they thinke it to be in very deed hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense as some Catholikes doe take it but for that they doe constantly hold it to be of such a nature that it may be condemned by the Church for an hereticall proposition and then the maintainers thereof to be pâ—operly heretikes if deposing be taken in that sense as it is in this branch of the oath distinguished from depriuing For to