A cleare, sincere, and modest confutation of the vnsound, fraudulent, and intemperate reply of T.F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English Iesuite. Wherein also are confuted the chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius, who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine, hath made against Widdrintons [sic] Apologie for the right, or soueraigntie of temporall princes. By Roger Widdrington an English Catholike.

The first CHAPTER,

Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius a famous man of the Order of S. Benedict, is exa∣mined.

1. THe first authoritie, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation, and also in my Apologie, was of Iohn Trithe∣mius a famous Abbot of the Order of S. Bennet, and a man of singular learning and piety, who writeth, that in his time, to wit in this present age, wherein nothing hath been newly defined either by Popes, or Councells concerning the Popes power to depose Princes (for all the Decrees of Popes or Councells, which by Card Bellarmine and others are vsually alledged to con∣firme the aforesaid authoritie, were long before Tri∣themius his time) this question touching the Popes power to depose the Emperour was in controuersie a∣mong the Schoolemen, and as yet not decided by the Iudge. His words are these:b 1.1 He indeed (Henry the fourth) was the first of all the Emperours, who was depo∣sed by the Pope. The Schoolemen, or Scholastikesc 1.2 are at strife concerning this point, and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge, whether the Pope hath power to

depose the Emperour, or no, which question for that it be∣longeth not to vs let vs leaue vndiscussed.

d 1.32. To this authoritie D. Schulckenius answereth in this manner. If Trithemius by Schoolemen, or Scho∣lastikes vnderstand those, who treate of Diuinitie scholasti∣cally, as S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Aegidius, Du∣randus, and others, he is manifestly deceiued, neither is it any maruell if he be deceiued, seeing that he was not skil∣full in that learning. But if he call Scholemen, Gramma∣rians, Historiographers, Poets, he saith something. For truely this point is in controuersie among Grammarians, as Valla, Historiographers, as Sigebert, Poets, as Dantes. But although it be in controuersie among them, and in their opinions the Iudge hath not as yet decided the question, yet it is not in controuersie among learned Diuines, and Law∣yers, who are not ignorant in holy Scriptures, and in the ve∣nerable Councells of the holy Church. For although a∣mong these there be a controuersie about the manner, how the Pope can do it, yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it. And what need is there to aske aduise of Trithemius, who oftentimes hath erred in the historie, which he professeth, as Antonius Posseuine hath noted in his Apparatus, seeing that we haue the common opinion of Doctours, and decrees of Councells, which doe make the matter cleare. Thus answereth D. Schulckenius.

3. Marke now how many shifts, and shufflings be in this answere. If Trithemius, saith he, by Schola∣stickes, or Scholemen vnderstand those, who treate of Diunitie scholastically, as S. Thomas &c. he is manifest∣ly deceiued: As though forsooth only scholasticall Diuines and scholasticall Diuinitie were to be had in estimati∣on, and positiue Diuines, who do not handle those sub∣tile Schoole-quirks, but do treat of holy Scriptures and other questions of Diuinitie after a plaine and positiue manner, as they were wont to be handled by the an∣cient Fathers, before Peter Lombard, the Master of the sentences his time, were not to be regarded. True

it is, that Trithemius by the word, Scholasticke, doth commonly vnderstand, not onely those, who pro∣fesse Scholasticall, or School-Diuinity, as it is now adaies distinguished from positiue Diuinity, but by Schola∣stikes he vnderstood Schoolemen and Students in gene∣rall, whether they professed Positiue or Scholasticall Diuinity, as it may euidently appeare by his Treatises de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, and de viris Illustribus, where he hath this word, Scholastike, aboue an hun∣dred times, and vseth it for a Schooleman, student, scholler, or scholler like in generall.

4. And although Trithemius by the word, Schola∣stikes or Schoolemen, had vnderstood not onely Stu∣dents in Diuinity in generall, but particularly those, that professe Scholasticall Diuinity, as it is distingui∣shed from positiue, yet that he had beene therein ma∣nifestly deceiued, as D. Schulckenius so boldly affir∣meth, is manifestly vntrue. For Iacobus Almainus, a famous Doctour, and Schoole-Diuine of Paris, and according to Fa. Azor the Iesuitee 1.4, a Classicall Do∣ctour, who flourished in Trithemius his time, doth also affirmef 1.5 as I obserued in my Apologie,g 1.6 that very many, or most Doctours, among which some no doubt were Schoole-Diuines, are of opinion, that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict any temporall punishment, as death, banishment, priuation of goods, much lesse of Kingdomes, nay nor so much as to impri∣son, but that the power, which hee hath by the institution of Christ, is onely extended to Excommunication, or some such spirituall punishment, and that his vsing of other pu∣nishments doth proceede meerely from the positiue Law, and priuiledges of Princes. It belongeth, saith hee, to the nature of the Laike power, to haue authority to inflict (he meaneth by way of coercion and constraint) tem∣porall punishment, as are death, exile, priuation of goods &c. but the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of God can inflict no such punishment, yea cannot so much as impri∣son,

vt plerisque Doctoribus place••, as very many or most Doctours (for so much the word, plerique, doth signifie) are of opinion, but it is extended onely to spirituall punishment, as Excommunication, and the other punish∣ments which it vseth, are from the pure positiue Law. And a little before he affirmed, that the Ecclesiasticall and Lay power of Iurisdiction in the externall Court are so distinguished in respect of the punishments, which can bee inflicted by either of them, that by one onely a corporall pu∣nishment, and by the other precisely a spirituall can bee in∣flicted. Now what words can bee more cleere then these, to which neuerthelesse D. Schulckenius giueth no answer, and yet my Aduersary after his vsuall manner very boldly affirmeth, that D. Schulckenius hath answered particularly to euery one of the authorities; which I brought either in my Apologie, or Theologicall Disputation.

5. The like words hath Iohn Gerson, another fa∣mous Classicall Doctour, and Schoole-Diuine of Paris, who liued before Trithemius, & Almaines time. There are, saith Gerson,h 1.7 who doe affirme, that this pu∣nishment of Excommunication is the last which the Eccle∣siasticall power of Iurisdiction by the onely first institution of Christ can inflict; so that it is not extended to imprison∣ment, or that any man bee adiudged to death or corporall whipping, but when the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth this, he doth it by the grant of Princes, as the Cleargie by the de∣••otion of Princes hath receiued much authoritie of tempo∣rall Iurisdiction, which Iurisdiction or Censure is neuerthe∣lesse called spirituall, as also the temporall goods of Ecclesia∣stical persons are called spiritual, because they are dedicated & applyed to thē, who serue the Church, as also the breads of propositiō, the first fruits, the tithes, alse the vessels of the Temple, and such like were in the olde Law called sacred or holy, so also the new Law doth obserue the same.

6. Secondly, it is no maruell, saith D. Schulckenius, that Trithemius be deceiued, if by Schoole-men he vn∣derstand

Scholasticall Diuines, seeing that he himselfe was not skilfull in that science. As though, forsooth, none can know, when men of any profession be at variance touching any difficult question belonging to that Science, but those onely, that be skilfull in the same profession. Physicians may easily know, when lear∣ned Lawyers are at strife concerning a point of Law, and so both of them may easily know, when learned Diuines are at contention about a Theologicall que∣stion; and writers of histories may also know, when Diuines or Lawyers are at debate about any point of Diuinity or Law, and may also, without passing the bounds of their profession relate the same to others. And therefore it is no maruell, that Trithemius being not onely a meere Historiographer, but also a learned positiue Diuine, as by his manifold workes it doth cleerely appeare, might easily perceiue, that it was at that time a controuersie among Scholasticall Diuines, whether the Pope had authoritie to depose the Empe∣rour or no. Neither is it necessarie, that the contro∣uersie should be made knowen by printed books, but it sufficeth that it bee made manifest by word of mouth, and publike opposition and contradiction in Schooles, as all men, who frequent the Schools, may by daily experience most cleerely perceiue.

7. Thirdly, but if Trithemius, saith D. Schulckenius call Schoolemen, Gramarians, Poets, Historiographers, he saith something. For truely this point is in controuersie among Grammarians as Valla, Historiographers as Sigebert, Poets as Dantes, and in their opinions the Iudge hath not as yet decided the question. Marke now the fraud and cunning of this man. For who would not by this his answer imagine, but that those three Au∣thours were meere Grammarians, Historiographers, Poets, and not Diuines? where as it is manifest, that although for Grammar, Histories, and Poetry they were singular, and inferiour to none of their times, yet

they were all of them also learned Diuines, as Trithe∣mius in his book de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus doth suf∣ficiently witnesse. Laurentius Valla, saith hee,i 1.8 a noble man of Rome, the Prince by farre of Grammarians of this age, a Philosopher, Rhetorician, and a most excellent Di∣uine &c. Dantes, saith he,k 1.9 by Country a Florentine, a most great student in his time of all men, as well in Diuine Scriptures as Secular learning, and very learned, a Philo∣sopher, and a Poet inferiour to none of that age. Sigebert, saith he,l 1.10 a monke of the order of S. Benedict, a most great student from his youth in Diuine Scriptures, and very lear∣ned, and in secular learning inferiour i••none of his time. And yet D. Schulckenius would cunningly perswade his Reader, that Valla was a meere Grammarian, Dantes a meere Poet, and Sigebert a meere Historiographer. Moreouer, Trithemius could not by Schoolemen only vnderstand Valla, Dantes and Sigebert; for that his words are of the present tence and time; He doth not say, It hath beene a controuersie among the Schoole-men, but it is a controuersie among the School-men, & adhuc, and as yet, till now, hitherto, to this present time, the question is not decided by the Iudge. Therefore Trithemius his words are not so to bee vnderstood, as D. Schulckenius expoundeth them, that in the opini∣on of Valla, Dantes and Sigebert, who all liued aboue a hundredm 1.11 yeeres before Trithemius his time, but ac∣cording to his owne opinion the question is not at this present decided by the Iudge.

8 Fourthly, But what neede is there, saith D. Schulckenius, to aske aduise of Trithemius, who of∣tentimes hath erred in the historie, which he professeth, as Antonie Posseuine hath noted in his Apparatus; But first, be it so, that Trithemius giuing credit to the re∣lation of others, hath erred sometimes in his histo∣rie (for all those oftentimes Posseuine doth in particu∣lar reduce onely to three) must therefore no credit be giuen to other his relations; especially, when o∣ther

Doctours of the same age doe relate the same? And doth not Card: Bellarmine himselfe confesse, as appeareth by his Recognitions, that he hath often∣times erred in points of Diuinitie, which depend not so much vpon relation, as vpon iudgement? must therefore no credit be giuen hereafter to his judge∣ment in other points of Diuinitie? or will he like it well, that his own words, which he vseth here against Trithemius, be retorted backe vpon himselfe, what neede is there to aske the aduise of Card: Bellarmine, who, as he himselfe confesseth, hath oftentimes erred in points of Diuinitie, which he professeth.

9 Secondly, obserue good Reader, how palpably and grossely, not to say shamefully, both Posseuine, and D. Schulckenius also, giuing credit to Posseuine, haue themselues erred, in reprehending vnworthily Trithemius his errours. For three particular things Posseuine relatethn 1.12, wherein he affirmeth Trithemius to haue erred in his historie. The first is, in that Tri∣themius affirmetho 1.13 Laurentius Iustinianus to haue been of the Order of the Celestines. And neuerthelesse Posseuine himselfe a little after in the word Laurentius Iustinianus doth in expresse words affirme, that he was of that Order. Laurentius Iustinianus, saith Posseuine, a Ʋenetian, of the Order of the Celestines, the first Patri∣arch of Venice &c. The second is, in that Trithemius affirmeth one Hugo a Dominican and Cardinall to be Barchionensis, and doth not make mention whether he was of Barcilona in France or in Spaine. But although Trithemius was not so exact in distinguishing those two places, yet considering that euery errour inclu∣deth a falshood, and Trithemius in the aforesaid rela∣tion affirmed no falshood or vntruth, hee can not iustly by Posseuine be therefore taxed of errour.

10 The third errour, wherewith Posseuine char∣geth them, is, in that hee affirmeth Abbot Ioachim to haue beene condemned in a generall Councell, where

as the Councell, saith Posseuine, did not condemne the man, but the doctrine, which was against the Master of the Sentences. But truly I can not but greatly maruell, how Posseuine could be so grossely mistaken, vnlesse he would of set purpose forge something, whereby he might disgrace Trithemius. For if he had but briefely runne ouer that place of Trithemius, which he citeth, he could not but haue seene, that Trithemius did only affirme Ioachims doctrine, and not his person to be condemned in the Councell. Tractatus autem quem scripsit &c. But the Treatise (saith Trithemiusp 1.14 in the place cited by Posseuine) which Abbot Ioachim wrote against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris, is condemned in a Generall Councell, as appeareth in the beginning of the Decretalls, Damnamus.

11 Wherefore to returne backe D. Schulcke∣nius his words, what neede had D. Schulckenius to aske aduice of Posseuine touching Trithemius his er∣rours, seeing that Posseuine himselfe hath therein not onely grossely erred, but also in other his relations, as in affirming Iohn Gerson Chancelour of Paris to be of the Order of the Celestines (wherein also Card: Bellar∣mine in his late treatise of Ecclesiasticall writers hath erred with him) yea and sometimes which is lesse ex∣cusable, when of set purpose he pretendeth to recall and amend his former errour; as in verbo Durandus à S. Porciano, whom in his former Edition, as he saith (for I neuer saw it) he affirmed to be Bishop of Melda, as truly he was, and of the Order of S. Dominike: and now, forsooth, in his corrected Edition he will needs haue him to be Bishop of Liege, and to haue liued in the yeare 1035. and that Hermannus Contractus, who liued in the yeare 1054. maketh mention of him, and yet he will also haue him to be of the Order of Domi∣nike: And neuerthelesse Posseuine himselfe a little be∣foreq 1.15 affirmed, that S. Dominike dyed in the yeare 1221. which was two hundred fourteene yeares after

Durandus flourished. Now let D. Schulckenius, or any other, who maketh so great account of Posseuines Apparatus, either accord these two, that Durandus à S. Porciano was according to Posseuine of the Order of S. Dominike, and yet that according to the same Posse∣uine he liued well neere 200. yeares before S. Dominike did institute his Order, or else not to giue hereafter so great credit to all that Posseuine affirmeth, seeing that he hath so grossely erred both in falsly taxing Trithe∣mius of those errours, and also (which is more grosse) when purposely he endeauoured to amend his owne errour.

12 Lastly, we haue, saith D Schulckenius, the com∣mon opinion of Doctours, and decrees of Councells, which doe make the matter cleare. And therefore although a∣mong learned Diuines and Lawyers there be a controuersie concerning the manner how the Pope may doe it, yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it. But first we haue the authoritie of Trithemius, that it is a contro∣uersie among the Schoolemen, and as yet not decided by the Iudge, not onely in what manner the Pope may depose the Emperour, but whether he hath any power at all to depose him. Then we haue the authoritie of Almaine a learned Schoole-Diuine, and a Classicall Do∣ctour, that it is the opinion of very many Doctours, that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can onely inflict spirituall Censures, and not any temporall punish∣ment, as death, exile, priuation of goods, much lesse of kingdomes, nay nor so much as imprisonment. And therefore although it be the more common opinion of Doctours, that the Pope hath power to depose Princes, especially of Lawyers, who as Pope Pius the fift did plainely confesse to that famous Lawyer Na∣uarrer 1.16, doe attribute more authoritie to the Pope then is sufficient (for that the greatest part of those Authours cited by Card: Bellarmine, who in expresse words af∣firme, that the Pope hath such a power, are Lawyers,

men also for the most part vnskilfull in Diuine Scrip∣tures, and the law of God, as Dominicus Sotus affirmethz 1.17) yet it is not the more common opinion of Doctours, that it is a cleare and certaine doctrine not to be cal∣led in question by any Catholike, that the Pope hath such a power.

13. Few only Diuines there are, & for the most part Iesuites who of late yeares haue by might and maine endeauoured without sufficient grounds to make the matter cleare, and to be an vndoubted point of faith. But vntill they bring more cleare decrees of Coun∣cells, or more pregnant proofes from holy Scriptures, then hitherto they haue brought, they will neuer make the matter cleare, but still it will remaine a con∣trouersie among Catholikes, not only in what maner the Pope may, but whether he hath any power at all to depose the Emperour or no, as it was in Trithemius and Almaines time, since which time no cleare decree of any Councell hath been made to that purpose, for all the decrees of Councells, which by Card. Bellar∣mine are vrged to proue that doctrine, and haue been answered by me and others, and shall beneath be an∣swered more at large, were long before their time. And thus much concerning the first authoritie of Tri∣themius, and Almaine.

Notes

• b 1.1

  In Chroni∣co monast. Hirsaug. ad annum 1106.
• c 1.2

  Scholastici.
• d 1.3

  Pag. 127. ad num. 33.
• e 1.4

  Lib. 2. Instit. cap. 14.
• f 1.5

  In Lib. de Dom. nat, ciu. & Eccl. in pro. 2 ae. concl.
• g 1.6

  Num. 122.
• h 1.7

  De potest. Eccles. consider. 4.
• i 1.8

  In verbo Laurentius Valla.
• k 1.9

  In verbo Dantes.
• l 1.10

  In verbo Sigebertus.
• m 1.11

  For Sige∣bert liued in the yere 1111 Dantes in the yeere 1321. Valla in the yeere 1420. and Trithemius in the yeere 1519.
• n 1.12

  In verbo Ioannes Tri∣themius.
• o 1.13

  In verbo Laurentius Iustin.
• p 1.14

  In verbo Ioachim Ab∣bas.
• q 1.15

  In verbo Dominicus Guzmannus.
• r 1.16

  in Comment. super cap: Non liceat Papae. 12. q. 2. § 3. num: 6.
• z 1.17

  Jn 4^o. dist. 18. q. 1. ar. 1.