This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer is briefly debated.
1. THe second testimonie, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation, and also in my Apolo∣gie to proue this doctrine for the Popes power to de∣pose Princes not to be certaine,a 1.1 without controuersie, or a point of faith, was of Albericus Roxiatus, a most famous Professour, as Trithemius writeth, of the Canon
and Ciuill Law, and a man excellently learned, and accor∣ding to Fa. Azorb 1.2, a Classical Doctour, who liued in the yeare 1340. aboue a hundred yeares since the Councell of Lateran, which is now so greatly vrged. For this Authour calleth in question foure of the most principall Canons or Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law, which do seeme most to fauour their au∣thoritie to depose Princes, and to dispose of the tem∣poralls, especially of the Romane Emperour (among which one is that famous, and so often inculcated by my Aduersaries, sentence of deposition denounced against Fredericke the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons) and he affirmeth that none of them are in his opinion agreea∣ble to law, or right, but that they were made by Popes, against the rights, and libertie of the Empire.
2. The Pastours of the Church, saith he,c 1.3 putting their sickle into others haruest, haue made foure Decrees, or Decretalls. The one concerning the election of the Em∣perour, which beginneth, Venerabilem, and of this it is there noted by all men. An other is about the deposing of Friderike the Emperour, extra de sententia & re iudicata cap. Ad Apostolicae in sexto, where also of this it is noted by all men. An other is concerning the discord betwixt Henry the Emperour, and Robert King of Sicily, and the sentence of treason published by the Emperour against him: which Decree is in Clementina de sententia & re iudica∣ta cap. Pastoralis. Another is in Clementina prima de Iureiurando, that the Emperour is bound to sweare allegi∣ance to the Pope, and concerning some authoritie of the Pope ouer the Emperour. Which Decretalls, whether they be iust or no, God he knoweth. For I without preiudice to sounder aduice do beleeue (and if it should be erroneous I recall it) that none of them be agreeable to right. Yea I beleeue that they are published against the rights and liber∣tie of the Empire, and I doe thinke that by God they were instituted distinct powers, whereof I haue noted sufficiently
lege prima Cod. de Summa Trinitate & Fide Catholica. Thus Albericus.
3 Obserue now, good Reader, how sleightly D. Sculckenius would shift of this authoritie, which is so plaine and manifest. Albericus, saith he, speaketh wa∣uering and altogether doubtfull, and he addeth, and if it should be erroneous I recall it: and he is conuinced of errour by Azor lib. 10. cap. 6. q. 3. These be all the excepti∣ons that D. Schulckenius taketh against this authority. But first this word doubtfull or wauering, as out of Vas∣quez I obserued in my Theologicall Disputationd 1.4, may be taken two manner of waies, either when one is so doubtfull, that he hath no determinate assent of either part, but remaineth perplex betwixt both, iudging neither part to be either true or false, in which sense that word, altogether doubtfull, which D. Schulkenius vseth here, if he will not speake improperly, can only be taken; and when we are thus doubtfull concerning any matter, we are alwaies bound to chuse the surer part; neither is it lawfull to do any thing with a doubt∣full conscience, taking doubtfull in this sense: Or else the word, doubtfull, may be taken, when wee haue a determinate assent or iudgement that one part is true or false, but yet we are not certaine, and therefore haue some feare of the contrarie, which feare doth not ex∣clude a determinate assent and iudgement that one part is true, for euery assent, iudgement or opinion, which is only probable, doth alwaies imply a feare; but feare consisteth in this, that he who is fearefull, or iudgeth with feare, hath two assents or iudgements, the one direct, whereby he iudgeth determinately, that one part is true, the other reflexe, whereby he iudgeth, that although he thinketh it true, yet in very deede it may be false, for that it is not certaine, but Disputable and in controuersie among Doctours, and therefore only probable: and when we are thus doubtfull or feare∣full concerning any matter, we are not bound to chuse
the surer part, but it is sufficient to chuse that which is probable, neither is it vnlawfull to doe any thing with such a doubtfull, or fearefull conscience, as in that place I declared out of Vasquez.
4. Now if D. Schulckenius by those wordes, waue∣ring and altogether doubtfull, vnderstand, as of necessi∣tie he must, if he will speake properly, that Albericus had no determinate assent, iudgement, or opinion concerning the vniustice of those Decretalls, this is manifestly false, and those words, I doe beleeue that they are not agreeable to right, and I doe beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Em∣pire &c. doe clearely conuince D. Schulkenius of ap∣parant vntruth. But if D. Schulckenius by those words wauering and altogether doubtfull, doe onely meane, that Albericus was indeed of opinion, that those Decretalls were vniust, yet he did not hold his opinion for certaine, and without all controuersie, and therefore was not obstinate in his owne opinion, but was readie to recall it, if it should proue to be errone∣ous, and that hee would not condemne other men, that should thinke the contrarie, (as now adaies it is too frequent to condemne other men) this is very true; for so much only doe import those his wordes, and I do beleeue vnder correction, or without preiudice to sounder aduise, and if it should be erroneous I recall it; this neuerthelesse doth not hinder, but that we haue the o∣pinion of a man excellently learned, and of a Classicall Doctour, that the sentence of deposition denounced against Frederike the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons, and three other famous Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law touching the Popes power to dispose of tempo∣ralls, were vniust, and made against the rights and li∣bertie of the Empire.
5. Secondly, but Albericus is conuinced, saith D. Schulckenius, of error by Azor. But besides that this
letteth not, but that Albericus is of opinion, that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes, this also is euen as true, as that which D. Schulckenius said before con∣cerning the errours, which he said Posseuine had ob∣serued in Trithemius his historie. For besides that all the arguments, which Azor bringeth to proue in ge∣nerall, the Popes authoritie ouer the Emperour in tem∣poralls, are but triuiall, and haue been alreadie answer∣ed partly by D. Barclay, partly by my selfe, and now of late very exactly by Mr. Iohn Barclay, to whom as yet no answere hath beene made, one only argument in particular Azor vrgeth against Albericus, which is this, that the Romane Emperour was instituted by the au∣thoritie of the Church, by whose grant also the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the Germanes or Frenchmen, and that he is created as a Patron, defen∣dour, Protector, and Tutour of the Church, from whence he inferreth, that the Pope did not put his sickle into ano∣ther mans haruest, but did vse his owne right, when hee made that Canon concerning the election of the Emperour, and when he exacteth an oath of the Emperour.
6. But that this is no conuincing proofe, I shewed clearely in my Apologiec 1.5. For the Romane Empire was not instituted by the authoritie of the Romane Church, seeing that he was instituted before there was any Romane Church at all, and continued for a long time together the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls of the Romane Church. Neither was the Romane Empire translated from the Grecians to the Germans or French men by the grant of the Romane Church, if by the Romane Church be meant onely the Cleargie of Rome, but it was translated by the grant, suffrages, and authoritie also of the Laitie, who in the west parts were subiect to the Romane Empire. True also it is, that all Catholike Princes ought to be Patrons, defenders, and protectours of the Romane Church (but the Ro∣mane Emperour more specially) they being children
and members of the Catholike Romane Church, and euery member is bound to defend eath other, but especially to defend the head. And therefore I will easily grant, that the Pope may exact, if need require, not only of the Romane Emperour, but also of all o∣ther Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance, but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls, and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance, this is that I vtterly de∣ny, neither will Card. Bellarmine, or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary; wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied, but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus, a man excellently learned, and a Classicall Doctour, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soue∣raigne Princes, and to dispose of their temporall do∣minions.
Jn verbo Albericus Roxiatus.
Lib. 2. Iust. cap. 14.
In Dictiona∣rio verbo Ele∣ctio.
Cap. 10. sec. 2. nu: 18. 19. 20. & 81.
Num 404. & seq.