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.

Chap. 3.

Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Pari∣siensis, a famous Doctour of Paris, is examined, and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient.

1. THe third authoritie, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputationa 1.1 and also in my Apolo∣gieb 1.2, was of Ioannes Parisiensis. a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike, and as Trithemius relatethc 1.3, most learned in the holy Scriptures, and who in the Vniuer∣sitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Profes∣sour, and left behind him many Disciples. He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran, which is now adaies so great∣ly vrged by our Aduersaries. This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion, that if a King should become an heretike, and incorrigible, and a contemner of Ecclesi∣asticall Censures, the Pope may do somewhat with the peo∣ple,

whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dig∣nitie, and be deposed by the people, to wit, he may excom∣municate all those, to whom it belongeth to depose the king, who should obey him as their Soueraigne: Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion, that it belongeth not to the Pope, to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall, or which is all one to depriue themd 1.4 of their kingdomes by a defini∣tiue sentence, in such sort, that after the sentence be pub∣lished they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie. For he affirmeth,e 1.5 that excommunication, or such like spirituall punishment is the last, which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge. For although, saith he, it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God, and to withdraw them from sinne, yet he hath not power to doe this, but by vsing those meanes, which be giuen him by God, which is by excluding them from the Sacraments, and participation of the faithfull. Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion, that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince (with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle) yet concerning the prin∣cipall controuersie, which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine, to wit, whether it be hereticall erroneous, or temerarious to affirme, that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie, Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely, as I haue now shewed, contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine. Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Dispu∣tation.

2 Marke now, good Reader, with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie. Ioannes Parisiensis, saith hef 1.6, is not for the contrarie opinion. For although he giueth lesse to the Pope, then he ought, yet he giueth as much as suffi∣ceth for our purpose. For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand, whether the Pope doe depose im∣mediately

by his sentence, or that he may by his right with∣draw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose? But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man? For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is, and euer hath been, whe∣ther the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence, in such sort, that after his sentence of depriuation be de∣nounced, they, who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie, are then no more Kings, and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne; and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis, blusheth not to affirme, that it doth not appertaine to the present question, whether the Pope may depose imme∣diately by his sentence, which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me, or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince, with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle. For most certaine it is, euen according to Card: Bel∣larmines owne doctrineg 1.7, that the Pope can not with∣draw, discharge, or absolue subiects from their obe∣dience immediatly by his sentence, vnles he haue au∣thoritie to depriue immediately & by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie, for that authoritie in a Prince, and obedience in subiects are correlatiues, and one dependeth on the other, and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect, as the dignitie, power, or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour, saith Suarezh 1.8, and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince, and is not depri∣ued of his Princely power, is clearely repugnant, saith Card: Bellarminei 1.9, to the law of God, and nature.

3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods, or dominions either of Kings, or priuate men. And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee

affirmethk 1.10, that the Pope is not a Lord, to whom the pro∣pertie of Church liuings doth belong, but onely a dispencer of them, but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer; vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church, in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer, but a declarer of the law. And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners, all the goods of the faithfull, yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated, the Pope, who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie, but of all the faithfull, as they are faithfull, hath authoritie, as he is ge∣nerall informer of faith and manners, in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull, & to ordaine them to be exposed, as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith, which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās, or other such like accident. And this ordination of the Pope is only a declaration of the law, to which he may by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell the faithfull. But in cases not of necessi∣tie, but of some speciall vtilitie, or when it is not apparant, that the goods of Lay-men doe helpe such vtilitie, or ne∣cessitie, the Pope hath not authoritie to compell any man, but concerning this hee may giue indulgences for giuing aide to the faithfull, and no other thing is granted him in my opinion. Thus writeth Parisiensis. wherefore in his opinion the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Lay-man of his goods, or any part thereof, euen in necessitie of faith and manners, but onely to declare, that he is bound by the law of God to giue such part of his goods, as the necessitie of the Church shall re∣quire; which if he neglect to doe, the Pope hath no other authoritie to compell him therevnto, then by Ecclesiasticall Censures, which are the last punishments, which the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can inflict.

4 In the very like manner Parisiensis discourseth of the disposing of Kingdomes, and of deposing temporall Princes, as I before related out of him.

For first he affirmeth, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose a King iuridically, or, which is all one, to de∣priue him by a iuridicall sentence of his right to reigne; and secondly, that the people, or temporall common-wealth may, and in some exorbitant cases are bound to depose their Prince; and so the Pope not by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation, but by de∣claring what the people are by the law of God bound to doe, and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compelling them therevnto, may according to Parisiensis, con∣curre to the deposing of a Prince by meanes of the people, which if the people, notwithstanding the Popes Censures neglect to doe, the Pope hath no fur∣ther power to depose him, for that Ecclesiasticall Cen∣sures are, according to him, the last punishment, which the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict.

5 Wherefore two things are affirmed by Parisi∣ensis, the one, that the Pope hath no authoritie to de∣priue Princes immediately by his sentence of their Princely power, and this is that only, which is in con∣trouersie betwixt mee and Card: Bellarmine: the other, that the people, or temporall common-wealth haue that authoritie in some exorbitant cases: and this is only a philosophicall question, and wherewith I would neuer intermeddle, as being impertinent to the question concerning the Popes authoritie to de∣priue him. And although many Catholike Doctors doe agree with Parisiensis in this point, yet many other learned Catholikes, whom I cited in my Apologiel 1.11, doe dissent from him herein, to which opinion doe incline very many of the ancient Fathers, who ex∣pounding those words of the King and Prophet,m 1.12 I haue sinned to thee alone, doe affirme, that Soueraigne Princes, for that they are inferiour to God alone, to wit, in temporalls, can be punished with temporall punish∣ments by God alone. And therefore D. Schulckenius may be greatly ashamed to affirme so boldly, that

Parisiensis doth not make for my opinion, and that it doth not appertaine to the question which is in hand, whether the Pope may depose Princes immediately by his sentence, or by meanes of the people, seeing that the onely question betwixt vs is, whether the Pope hath power to depriue Princes of their Royall power immediately by his sentence, and not what authoritie the common-wealth hath to depriue them.

6 But D. Schulckenius perceiuing, that this his answer to the authoritie of Parisiensis was but a meere shift and euasion, hath reserued but not in this place another answer, whereby he imagined to cleane ouer∣throw the authority of this famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine. For hee beneathn 1.13 replying to the answer, which I made to those words of S. Bernard vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes pow∣er to depose Princes, Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentas &c. wherof beneatho 1.14 I will treate more at large, in confirmation of which my answer I cited the au∣thoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis, D. Schulckenius writeth thus: There is no great regard to bee had of the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis whatsoeuer he saith, for that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis: and also in the 14. chapter of the same Treatise hee mingleth many errours. The like answer, but more biting maketh Fa: Lessius in his Singleton. It is to little purpose, saith he,p 1.15 what Ioannes Parisiensis doth say, because he alledgeth very many other false citations and histories, as being a Schismatike. Ano∣ther censure but more temperate Card. Bellarmine gi∣ueth of him in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers. Io∣annnes Parisiensis, saith he,q 1.16 of the Order of the Prea∣chers, was famous about the yeere 1296. Hee wrote vpon the foure bookes of the sentences, and diuerse Quodlibets: but especially of Kingly and Papall power, and because it was his happe to liue in trouble sometimes by reason of the

discord betweene Pope Boniface the eight, and Philip the faire, King of France, and hee liued and taught at Pa∣ris, hee seemeth to be more inclined towards the King, then the Pope.

5 But truely it is strange, that men of such singu∣lar learning, and religious profession should so rashly and without sufficient grounds be so transported, as, contrarie to the rules of Christian Charitie and Iu∣stice, to defame and slaunder learned and vertuous men, and those especially, who beeing dead cannot defend themselues. For first it is an apparant and too too manifest slander, which Fa: Lessius, speaking with all dutifull respect to his reuerence, doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis was a Schismatike; neither can he out of any approoued Authour, or by any proba∣ble reason prooue any such thing: and therfore what great account hee hath to make at the dreadfull day of iudgement, for vniustly taking away, as much as lieth in him, the good name of so famous a man, and in so fowle and hainous a crime as Schisme is, I re∣mit to the examination of his owne conscience. Be∣sides, that Parisiensis mingleth many errours in the 14. chapter of his Kingly and Papall power, as D. Schulcke∣nius affirmeth, and that he alledgeth many false citati∣ons and histories, as Fa: Lessius saith, is also vntrue, and it had beene fitting for them to haue alledged some one of them, that thereby some credit might haue beene giuen them for the rest. Vnlesse whatsoeuer is not agreeable to D. Schulckenius his doctrine, which he thinketh to be certaine must bee accounted an er∣rour, and whatsoeuer Fa. Lessius hath not seeene. or read must be esteemed a false citation or historie. True it is, that Parisiensis in that 14. chapter doth teach, that the Pope cannot iudge of temporall causes, but in regard of the sinne, and that hee cannot depose Princes by his sen∣tence, and that the last punishment, which an Ecclesiasti∣call Iudge can inflict, are spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Cen∣sures

which indeede are no errours, whatsoeuer these seuere Censours say to the contrary. True also it is, that Parisiensis citeth a place out of Hostiensis, at which Fa. Lessius doth indiscreetly carp,r 1.17 affirming, that he findeth no such thing in Hostiensis, yea & that Hostiensis hath not written vpon the chapter Ad Abolendam tit. de Haereticis, as Widdrington iudgeth, as neither vpon other texis. But neuerthelesse I found in Ostiensis vpon the chapter Ad abolendam that which Ioannes Parisiensis cited out of him; and to say that Hostiensis did not write vpon that chapter Ad abolendam, is so manifest an vntruth as I obserued in another places 1.18, that I wonder how F. Lessius, who is reputed to be a man of so great reading, could be ignorant thereof.

6 Moreouer, that Parisiensis seemeth to bee more en∣clined to the King then to the Pope, he then liuing and tea∣ching at Paris, is indeede affirmed, but not prooued by Card. Bellarmine. And if this manner of censu∣ring learned men and excepting against their autho∣rity, as men partiall, may be approoued, it is the rea∣die way to ouerthrow the testimony almost of all the Authours on both sides. For it may in the same man∣ner be answered, that as such Authours wrote parti∣ally in fauour of Kings, so others wrote partially in fa∣uour of Popes; And therefore Parisiensis himselfe fore∣seeing this obiection replieth thus: For to say, saith he,t 1.19 that so woorthie men, among whom some also were Popes, did write against their conscience in fauour of Princes, or for feare of them, is to stretch foorth his mouth against hea∣uen. For contrariwise it might be sayd more probably, that those Doctours, who doe so vnmeasurably aduance the Popes authority, doe speake for feare or fauour of him, seeing that they are Ecclesiasticall persons, who may by him get greater preferment. And especially sith that they say (although not well) that the Pope doth graciously embrace them, who do amplifie his authority, & depresseth them, who doe say the contrarie.

7 Furthermore, neither can D. Schulckenius in my opinion sufficientlie prooue, that Ioannes de Poliaco, whose errours were condemned by Pope Iohn the 22. in that Extrauagant Vas electionis, was this Ioannes Pa∣risiensis, who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power, but some other Doctour of Paris, who was called by that name, and liued about that time. And my coniectures are these. First, for that the errours, which Ioannes de Poliaco maintained concerning con∣fessions made to the mendicant Friers, were against the priuiledges which were granted to the mendicant Friers, and therefore it is not like that he who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power, and was him∣selfe of the order of the preaching Friers, would preach and teach against the priuiledges granted to his Order. Secondly, if this Ioannes de Poliaco had been of the Order of the preaching Friers, as all Authours affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis, who wrote the Trea∣tise of Kingly and Papall power, was, it is very like, that Pope Iohn the 22. who condemned his errors, would haue named him so to be in his Extrauagant as he did, in his other Extrauagants name of what Order those Authours were, whose errours he condemned, as Michael of Cesena, William Occam, Henricus of Cena, and others: who neuerthelesse are in some sort excu∣sed from errour by D. Sandersu 1.20.

8. Thirdly, there is no Authour that I haue read, who saith, that Ioannes de Poliaco, whose errours were condemned, was of the Order of the preaching Fry∣ars, neither doth Prateolus, who vsually setteth down, of what Order those Authours whom he relateth, are, affirme, that this Ioannes de Poliaco was of that Order, whereas most Authors, who speake of Ioannes Pari∣siensis, that wrote the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power, doe affirme, that hee was a Dominican Fryar. Fourthly, neither is, there any Authour that I haue read, who doth affirme, that Ioannes Parisiensis,

who made the Treatise of Kingly and Papall power, was called Ioannes de Poliaco. Lastly Ioannes Parisiensis was famous in the yeare 1280. according to Trithemius, and Kisengremus, and according to Card. Bellarmine in the yeare 1296. both which may very well be true, for that it may very well fall out, that the same man may be a famous Teacher and Preacher for sixteene yeares together, but it is very vnlike, that one man should for one and fortie yeares together at the least be a famous Reader and Preacher, which wee must grant to be true, if Ioannes de Poliaco, whose errours were condemned, and he in person recalled them be∣fore the Pope and Cardinalls in publike Consistorie at Auinion in the yeare 1321. and was commanded to teach and preach in the Schooles, and pulpit the con∣trarie doctrine, was our Ioannes Parisiensis, who wrote the Treatise of Kingly and papall power, and was famous in the yeare 1280.

9. But to conclude this point, be it so, that our Ioannes Parisiensis, and Ioannes de Poliaco were one and the selfe same man, which yet, as I haue shewed, hath no great likelihood, neuerthelesse the maintaining of those errors doth little repaire the authoritie of Ioānes Parisiensis in this point, but rather from hence a forci∣ble argument may bee drawne to proue, that it is no erroneous doctrine, to hould, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes by his sentence. For be∣sides that it was no great blemish either to the learning or vertue of Ioannes de Poliaco, to hold that doctrine concerning confessions, which was condemned in that Extrauagant, seeing that both many other lear∣ned men at that time as Henricus de Ga••danox 1.21 a fa∣mous Doctour of Paris, Durandus a S. P••rtianoy 1.22 a great Schoole-Diuine, yea and the whole Ʋniuersitie of Paris, as witnesseth Ioannes Maiorz 1.23, a famous Doc∣tour of the same Vniuersitie, did maintaine the same; and also that he was readie at the first condemnation

thereof to recall it, and to preach the contrary; if at that time the Pope and Cardinalls had also beene per∣swaded, that it was an erroneous doctrine to affirme, that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes by his sen∣tence, and that it belongeth to the Pope to recall men to God, and to withdraw them from sinne by no other coerciue meanes, then by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull, and that Excommunication, or such like spirituall punishment is the last, which may bee inflicted by the spirituall Iudge, all which Ioannes Parisi∣ensis in his treatise of Kingly and papall power did pub∣likely maintaine, without doubt the Pope, if hee had thought this doctrine to be erroneous, would also haue compelled him to recall it, it being so greatly preiu∣diciall to his owne Pontificall authoritie. And there∣fore notwithstanding all the exceptions, which Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius do take against Ioannes Pa∣risiensis, we haue the testimonie of this learned Catho∣like, and famous Schole-Diuine, that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes by his sentence, which is the only question at this time betweene me, and Card. Bellarmine.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num. 7.
• b 1.2

  Num. 121.
• c 1.3

  In verbo Ioannes Pari∣siensis.
• d 1.4

  Almainus de potest. Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8.
• e 1.5

  De potest. Regia & Pa∣pali cap. 14. ad. 20.
• f 1.6

  Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num: 4.
• g 1.7

  in Tract: contra Barcl. cap. 21. pag. 202.
• h 1.8

  in Defensione fides &c. lib. 6. cap: 3. nu. 6.
• i 1.9

  in Tract: contra Barcl: cap. 21. p. 202.
• k 1.10

  De potest. Regia & Pap. cap: 6. 7.
• l 1.11

  Num. 411.
• m 1.12

  Psal: 50.
• n 1.13

  Pag. 394. ad num. 201.
• o 1.14

  Part. 2. ca. 9.
• p 1.15

  Pag. 29.
• q 1.16

  Pag. 380.
• r 1.17

  Pag. 30.
• s 1.18

  In my Latin Appendix a∣gainst Fa: Suarez part. 1. sec. 7 num. 14.
• t 1.19

  De potest. Regia & Pa∣pali c. 21. ad 41.
• u 1.20

  De visib. mo∣narch lib. 7. num 161.
• x 1.21

  quodl. 2. q. 26. & quodl. 10. q. 1.
• y 1.22

  In 4. dist. 17. q. 1.
• z 1.23

  In 4. dist. 17. q. 6.