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. 6.

Wherein the authoritie of the King∣dom, and State of France is at large discussed.

1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputationa 1.1, and also in my Apologieb 1.2 and which onely, if there were no o∣ther, would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith, was taken from the authoritie of the most noble, and most Christian Kingdom and State of France, which euer held the contrarie to be the more true, sound, and assured doctrine. And first to omit the autho∣ritie

of Iacobus Almaine, a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris, whereof I spake before, who affirmed, that very many, or most Doctors were of opinion, that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments, no, nor so much as to imprison, much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues) in a generall Parliament, or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue, and other Prelates, who then were pre∣sent, tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent, which Laurentius Bochellus rela∣teth, among which that of the 25. session, chap: 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats, was one. The Councell of Trent, say they, doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cit∣tie or place, wherein he permitteth to fight a single com∣bate. This article is against the authoritie of the King, who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion, in re∣gard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all.

2 Secondly, Petrus Pithaeus, a man, as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth, truly learned, and a diligent searcher of antiquitie, in his booke, of the liberties of the Church of France, printed at Paris by authoritie of the Par∣liament in the yeare 1594, doth out of a generall maxime, which France, as he saith, hath euer approued as certaine, deduce this particular position: That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France, nor any thing appertayning therevnto, neither that he can de∣priue the King thereof, nor in any other manner dispose thereof. And notwithstanding any admonitions, Excom∣munications, or Interdicts, which by the Pope may be made, yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls, neither therein can they be dispenced, or absolued by the Pope.

3 Mark now, good Reader, what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities. To the first hee answereth,c 1.3 that it is not

credible, that the Cardinall of Pelleue, and the other Pre∣lates should affirme that, which Bochellus relateth. For the Councell of Trent, saith he, doth not decree, that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place, wherein they shall permit single combat, but with a re∣striction, that they are depriued of the Cittie, fort, or place, which they hold of the Church, or which they hold in fee farme. Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France, or other absolute Kings, vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church, or that the King is not a direct Lord, but a feudarie. Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie, to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell, as Bochellus hath depraued, which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue, and of the other Prelates.

4 But truly it is not credible, that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great, and publike a forgerie, as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Par∣liament, and assembly of the three States of the Land, especially printing his booke at Paris, where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out ea∣sily, and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie, and withall affirming, that those articles were extra∣cted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593, and putting downe such particu∣lar circumstances, as naming not only the day of the yeare, but also of the moneth, to wit, the 19. of Aprill, when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them &c. and setting downe all the articles in French, whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin.

5 Neither is the reason, which D. Schulckenius bringeth, to make this testimonie seeme incredible, of any great moment. For first it is vntrue, which he saith, that the Councell did not speake of the King of France, and other absolute Kings. The words of the

Councell are cleare to the contrarie. The Emperour, saith the Councell, Kings, Dukes, Princes, Marquesses, Earles, and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called, who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians, let them be excommu∣nicated, and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie, fort, or place, which they hold from the Church, wherein, or whereat they shall permit single combat, and if they be held in fee farme, let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords: but they that shall fight the combat, and they that are called their Pa∣trimi, let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Ex∣communication, and forfeiture of all their goods &c. So that it is plaine, that the Councell speaketh of Empe∣rours, and of other absolute Kings and Princes.

6. Secondly, although it bee cleere, that those words [let them bee depriued of the Citty, Fort, or place which they hold from the Church] be spoken with a re∣striction and limitation onely to those Citties, Forts, or places, which bee held from the Church, yet the words following [and if they be held in fee farme, let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords] may absolute∣ly, and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnder∣stood of those Citties, Forts or places, which be held in fee farme either from the Church, or from some o∣ther Soueraigne Prince, as from the direct Lord of them. So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the ter∣ritories of the Church, as within the Popes domini∣ons, and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes, if perchance they should either bee Patrimi, or fight themselues in single combat. And so by consequence it might bee inferred, that, if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions, which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes, or to confiscate their goods, or else the goods of their subiects without their con∣sent,

the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties, Forts and places, whereof they are absolute Lords. And so the Cardinall of Pelleue, and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense, as also D. Weston in his Sanctuaried 1.4 doth vnderstand them, and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue, that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith, and decreed by the Councell of Trent, who little thought, that he should therefore haue beene censu∣red of imprudencie and malignitie, as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France, if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent, as Bochellus relateth, and D. Weston expoun∣deth it.

6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus, D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner. First, I answer, saith he,e 1.5 that Antonie Posseuine com∣mendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man, and a diligent searcher of antiquity, and relateth all his workes, and also his death, and yet he maketh no mention of this booke, and I confesse I neuer saw it. But although neither Posseuine, nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke, yet I haue seene it, and read it, and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie. And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike, and a diligent searcher of an∣tiquitie, by Posseuines confession, that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome, and that notwithstanding any admonitions, Excommuni∣cations &c. his subiects are bound to obey him in tem∣porals.

7. His second answer is, that whosoeuer is the Au∣thour of that booke, it is cleerely false, that France hath al∣waies

approoued that doctrine for certaine. Marke now the reasons, which D. Schulckenius bringeth to con∣uince this very learned man, and diligent searcher of an∣tiquity of manifest falshood. For first it is repugnant, saith he, to the Councell of Claramont, wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second, whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus. But it is most cleerely false, that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne, as both If 1.6, and M^r. Iohn Barclayg 1.7 haue cleerely shewed heeretofore, for that no Historiographer writeth, that he was de∣posed in that Councell, but at the most onely ex∣communicated, for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta, and had married Bertrada, who was also wife to another man. For Sigebert, Aimonius, Mat∣thew Paris, Nauclerus, Paulus Aemilius, Robertus Ga∣guinus, Papirius Massonius, the Authour of the frag∣ment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber, Genebrard, and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus, and as some of them say, in the Councell of Claramont, but none of them make mention, that hee was deposed or de∣priued of his Royall honour and Crowne.

8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo, that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne, for that Iuo at that very time, when Philip was excommunicated, did in expresse words account him his Lord and King, and offered him his faithfull seruice, as to his Lord and King: This onely can be gathered out of Iuo, that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene, or rather Con∣cubine Bertrada, by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity, which for that it was a religious ceremony, and vsu∣ally done in the Church at the time of Masse, by the Primate of the Land, and Philip was at that time ex∣communicated

and depriued of all holy rites and ce∣remonies of the Church, Pope Vrbanus fo•• bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King, and his new supposed Queene, for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France, and this solemnitie, which Pope Vrbanus forbade, or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie.

9. Secondly, it is repugnant, saith D. Schulckenius, to the examples of Gregorie the great, of Zachary, and of o∣ther Popes. But to those examples both I haue answe∣red at large in my Apology,h 1.8 and also since that M^r. Iohn Barclayi 1.9, to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made, and first, that those words of S. Gregorie,k 1.10 ho∣nore suo priuetur, let him be depriued, or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour (for both wayes it may be Englished, as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue, or of the Optatiue moode) doe not con∣tain a iuridicall sentence, command or decree, as like∣wise neither those words, which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory, & cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur, and let him be damned in hell, or, I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour, but onely ei∣ther a zealous imprecationl 1.11 against them, who should infringe his priuiledge, if they did not repent, or else a declaration, that they were worthie for their con∣tempt, to bee depriued of their honour, and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour: from whence it cannot be inferred, that the Pope hath au∣thoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour, or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire.

10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered,m 1.12 that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome, and create Pipin King, but onely gaue his aduise,

counsell, and consent, or at the most command to the Peeres of France, that they ought, or might law∣fully (the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered) depriue Childerike of his kingdome, and create Pipin king: but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuri∣dicall sentence of depriuation, but at the most an au∣thority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment, which is not the questi∣on, which we haue now in hand. And therefore the Glossen 1.13 with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologieo 1.14 doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth: Zacharie deposed Childerike, thus, Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him: and those words, which some Chronicles haue, Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie, Lupolbus Bambergensis, Ioannes Parisiensis, and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner, that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike, and creating Pipin King, but only declaring, that he might be lawfully depo∣sed by the Peeres of France, whereof they were in some doubt, for that they had sworne to him allegiance, and therefore they craued the opinion, and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt, for that the Ʋniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time, saith Ioannes Maior,p 1.15 and so Pipin was annoin∣ted King by the election of the Barons, saith Ioannes Parisiensis, and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons, which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause.

11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities, which by mee, and others haue beene so often answered, I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that, which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apolo∣gie,q 1.16 and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vinge∣rius

in his Historie of the Church of France, and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his an∣swere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay; to wit, that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard, and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine, and others, is not so authenticall, as Card. Bellarmine, and others suppose it to be, which may be proued by many pro∣bable coniectures; as by the stile, and phrase, which is not agreeable to S. Gregories, and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord, which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies, but principally by the persons, who are subscribed for witnesses to that priue∣ledge. For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury, and Melli∣tus Bishop of London, and Theodorike King of France, are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge, and yet neither S. Austin, nor Mellitus, were Bishops, nor Theodorike King at that time, which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirmer 1.17. But I confesse, saith he, that the subscriptions of the Bishops, and of The∣odorike King of France do not agree to these times: for many Bishops, who are found subscribed, are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after, as to speake nothing of the rest, Augustin Bishop of Canterbury, and Mellitus of London, who, as it is manifest, were neither at this time Bishops, nor gone for England; neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France, but Childebert, and Gun∣thramn. Wherefore my opinion is, that the subscription was afterwards adioyned. Thus Baronius. But consi∣dering that Theodorike not only in the subscription, but also in the priueledge it selfe is named King, at whose instance S. Gregorie saith he granted that priueledge, Baronius might with the same reason haue affirmed, that not only the subscription, but also the priueledge it selfe was afterwards made, and adioyned to S. Grego∣ries Epistles, which without doubt Baronius would quickly haue acknowledged, if it had not beene for

those words honore suo priuetur, which hee thought made greatly for the Popes power to depose Princes, seeing that vpon far weaker grounds hee sticketh not to deny oftentimes priueledges, and antiquities, which neuer before were called in question.

12. And although Pope Gregorie the seuenth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Metz doth not cite this pri∣ueledge, of S. Gregorie granted to the Monasterie of S. Me••ard (which is no small coniecture, that this pri∣ueledge was not extant in those daies among the Epi∣stles of S. Gregorie, for otherwise it bearing so great a shew of being authenticall by the subscription of 30 Bishops, and the King and Queene of France, who were witnesses thereunto, it would by all likelihood haue beene cited by Pope Gregorie the seuenth) but an other priueledge granted to an other Monasterie by S, Gregorie in his Epistle to one Senator Abbots 1.18 wher∣in S. Gregorie did not say honore suo priuetur, let him be depriued of his honour, but potestatis, honorisque sui digni∣tate careat, let him want, or, I desire he may want, not his honour, but the worthinesse of his power and honour, which words are not so forcible to prooue the Popes authoritie to depriue Kings of their princely honour and power, but at the most to declare them to bee vnwor∣thy of it for some crime committed by them, and to be worthy also to be damned in hell with Iudas the Traitor, for that many a one may be a true King, and haue princely power and honour who is vnworthy there∣of. Neuerthelesse, (besides that the aforesaid words do containe no sentence of depriuation, but onely a curse, or imprecation, which kinde of imprecations e∣uen containing anathema was frequent in the priue∣ledges granted by Lay-men, yea and vpon sepulchres, that men should be fearefull to violate them, as Baro∣niust 1.19 relateth) also this priueledge mentioned in S. Gregories epistle to Senator, is not so authenticall, both for that it hath neither date of any yeare, or day when

it was written, nor subscription of any witnesse, which by likelihood it would haue had, if there had beene any authenticall copie thereof, and also for that the Authour of the booke intituled de vnitate Ecclesiae who is thought to be Venericus Bishop of Vercellis, and liued in Pope Gregorie the seuenth his time, answering that epistle of Pope Gregorie the seuenth to the Bishop of Metz doth bouldly affirme, that those words, potesta∣tis honorisque sui dignitate careat, let him want the worthi∣nesse of his power and honour, were not in those daies ex∣tant among the workes of S. Gregorie. Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue, what weake demonstra∣tions and authorities Card. Bellarmine doth so often inculcate to conuince this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Painces to be a point of faith.

13 Thirdly, it is also repugnant, saith D. Schulc∣kenius, to those most famous French writers, whom I re∣lated before. But although it be true, that the most part of those seuenteene French writers related by Card: Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay, and now in his Schulckenius against me, are of opinion, that the Pope hath power to depose Princes, this ne∣uerthelesse may also be true, which Petrus Pithaeus affirmeth, to wit, that France, vnderstanding thereby the State of France, hath euer held, the the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdom. May it not truly be said, that the Kingdome, and State of England hath from the first yeere of Queene Eli∣zabeths reigne, euen to this present time, held, that the Catholike Romane Religion is not the true Reli∣gion, notwithstanding that not onely seuenteene, but seuenteene thousands there haue been of English Catholikes, since the first beginning of hir reigne, till now, who haue held the contrarie. wherefore when Petrus Pithaeus affirmed, that France hath euer held, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King, by France hee did not vnderstand euery particular

French-man, but the State and temporall Gouernours of the Kingdome of France, which his assertion is also confirmed by the State and Parliament of Paris, first in the censuring of Card: Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay, then in burning his Schulckenius written against me, afterwards in condemning Suarez booke against his Maiesties Apologie for maintayning so stifly this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes, and to dispose of all their temporalls, which they call a scandalous, and seditious, a damnable, and pernicious doctrine, and now lastly, by the decree of the Parliament of Paris the second of Ianuarie of this present yeere 1615, wherein it is ordained, that it shall not bee held for problematique; and also by the new oath of allegiance like vnto that of ours, (but that ours is more sweete, and more modest, as the Car∣dinall du Peronu 1.20 affirmeth) which those of the lower house of the generall assembly of all the States of France, (whom the same Cardinall du Peron, in his speech to them, confesseth to be Catholikesx 1.21,) endea∣uoured to haue made for a fundamentall Law.

14 Lastly, it is also repugnant, saith D. Schulcke∣nius, to reason, it is repugnant to the principles of the Ca∣tholike faith. For if the Subiects of the King of France be bound to obey their King being excommunicated, and that they can not be absolued from this obedience by the Pope, it followeth that either the King of France can not be bound by Christ his Vicar with the bond of Excōmuni∣cation, or that his Subiects can not be loosed from the bond of their allegiance and obedience. Both are repugnant to the words of Christ, who said to his Ʋicar, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, shall be bound also in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed also in heauen. Neither did Christ ex∣cept the King of France, or his Subiects, and who hath excepted them I can not tell. This I know, that no man could by right except them. and whosoeuer will not be sub∣iect

to the keyes of the Church, I know, and with a cleare voice I doe pronounce, that hee will neither bee a Chri∣stian, nor can ••••e appertaine to the kingdome of Christ.

15 Great words to small purpose. For although it be true, that Card: Bellarmine, Suarez, and some few others are, or seeme to be of opinion, that it is against reason, and against the principles of the Ca∣tholike faith, to hold, that the Pope hath no authori∣tie to depose Princes, yet it is also true, that other learned Catholikes are of opinion, that it is neither a∣gainst reason, nor against the principles of the Catho∣like faith to hold, that the Pope hath no such autho∣ritie. Must the opinion of Card: Bellarmine, or of Suarez, or of any other learned Catholike, be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes, or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith? All Catholikes doe confesse, that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Chri∣stian King, and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things, which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature, and by the institution of Christ doth forbid; but to ab∣solue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication (which being a spi∣rituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature, nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect) or by the sentence of depriuation, this many learned Ca∣tholikes, with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde, or loose.

16 True also it is, that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church, but these keyes are spiri∣tuall, not temporall, of the kingdome of heauen, and not of earthly kingdomes; neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie, which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words, whatsoeuer thou shalt loose &c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of tempo∣rall,

but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings, as I haue often shewed; neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church, to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegi∣ance, or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues, libertie, kingdomes or goods, as by some Catholikes of these latter ages, contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ, and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church, they haue been violently wrested. To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose &c. I answer, saith Ioannes Parisiensis, according to S. Chrysostome & Rabanus, that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall, to wit, to absolue from the bond of sinnes. For it were foolish to vnderstand, that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts, and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance.

16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulc∣kenius taketh against those authorities, which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation: Now let any indiffe∣rent Reader iudge, whether he hath sufficiently an∣swered those authorities, or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off, and whether M^r. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly, that D. Schulckenius, to whom he cunning∣ly also, as you haue seene, remitteth his English Rea∣der, for his answer to those authorities, hath answered particularly to euerie one of them, and prooued cleerely, that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington, and many nothing at all for him (being truely vnderstood) and that some others are worthily reiected, being either so ab∣surd, that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged, or else heretikes (as appeareth by their doctrine in other things) or knowen Schismatikes, who li∣uing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were de∣posed, wrote partially in their fauours, of which sort neuer∣thelesse there are very few, so that of all the Authours,

that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine, hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same, which how true it is, or rather most cleerely false, I remit to the consi∣deration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader.

17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius, a lear∣ned and vertuous Catholike, who expressely affir∣meth, that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen, & as yet not decided by the Iudge, whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no, partly hee reiecteth, partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers, Grammarians, Poets, as Sigebert, Valla, Dantes, who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines, and part∣ly to repell his testimonie he falsely, grossely, and vn∣aduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie, and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Rea∣der to Posseuine, who, as you haue seene, both in that, and also other points of historie hath shamefully er∣red himselfe: and neuerthelesse, that which Trithemi∣us affirmeth, Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Di∣uine, and classicall Doctour of Paris, who liued also in those daies, confirmeth to be true, whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all. Albericus, a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law, for that hee deliuereth his opi∣nion with submission, & is ready to recal it, if it should prooue erroneous, as euery good Catholike ought to doe, he will haue to speake wauering, and altogether doubtfull. Ioannes Parisiensis, a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion, and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of o∣pinion, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation, which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point, which I contend to prooue: and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him with∣out

sufficient ground of many errours, which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained, doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes. The testimony of M^r. D. Barclay a famous, learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike. To M. Black∣well and those other English Priests he answereth no∣thing. The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such parti∣cular circumstances, that no man can misdoubt of them, for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredi∣ble, The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus, a very learned Catholike, and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posse∣uines confession, affirming that France hath euer held for certaine, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King, also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reie∣iecteth, which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his, and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed. And if this man∣ner of answering authorities is to bee admitted, who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer, e∣specially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie, and to depresse their aduersaries, and who shall seeme to make against them, whether they be liuing or dead, euen to the pit of hell, appeaching them of heresie, er∣rour, schisme, and such like hainous crimes?

18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apo∣logie, which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine (which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute) whereof some of them doe expressely affirme, that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall, and not a temporall sword; Others, that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God, and to bee pu∣nished with temporall punishments by God alone, and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall: Others, that neither Childerike was depo∣sed,

nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graeci∣ans to the Germans, or French, by the Popes sole au∣thoritie, but by the consent, suffrages, and authoritie also of the people, which neuerthelesse are principall authorities, which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes: Finally others, although they be of opinion, that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for he∣resie, or, which is a farre different question, to de∣clare them to be deposed (for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis) yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope, whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause, but doth absolutely, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, in order to spirituall good extend this pretended autho∣ritie.

19. Neither is it true, that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion, as M. Fitz∣herbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affir∣meth: I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua, for that not onely his booke, but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbid∣den bookes. And although I had vrged his authority in that sort, as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez, yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe; not for that I thinke the authority of an here∣tike, barely considered by it selfe, to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith, but for that Marsilius, writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them, wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies, he should by Catholike Authours, who write of heresies, as Castro, Prateolus, D. Sanders and others, bee particu∣larly taxed of those heresies, and yet his doctrine a∣gainst the Popes power to depose Princes, which was

the principall subiect of his booke, should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous, for this is a forcible argument, that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus, although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine.

20. True also it is, that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion, for that hee vehemently im∣pugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes, both against Pope Gregorie the se∣uenth, and also Paschalis the second, calling it a nouel∣tie, not to say an heresie, and answering, as he saith, with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle, which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power. But Sigebert, saith D. Schulckenius, was a Schismatike, and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth, and Paschalis the second are con∣demned by the Catholike Romane Church. But truly it is strange, and greatly to be lamented, to see some Ca∣tholikes now adaies, especially who professe sanctitie of life, and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame, and slander other Ca∣tholikes, who dislike their opinions or proceedings, with such enormious crimes, as are Schisme, heresie, and Apostacie. What reason had Card. Baronius, of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same, to call Si∣gebert a Schismatike (he being by no other Authour, that I haue read, before Baronius, charged with that heinous crime, but was euer reputed a learned, vertu∣ous, and religious Catholike) truely I cannot in any wise perceiue. Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church, or a refusing to obey the Pope, as he is the visible head of the Church, and Christ his Ʋicege∣rent on earth.

21: For obserue diligently, saith Card. Caietaney 1.22 that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies. First, in regard of the thing com∣manded.

Secondly, in regard of the person commanding; and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge, or com∣mander. For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence, to wit, for that he will not fulfill that, which the Pope hath commanded, as to abstaine from such a warre, to restore such a State &c. although hee should most greiuously sinne, yet he is not for this a Schismatike. For it falleth out and that often, that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthe∣lesse to be his Superior. For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected, and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence, but also his immediate iudgement or sentence, being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges, hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme, nor any other crime. For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things, and to be warie of dangers. And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically, & so much the easier, by how much he is more potent, and feareth no reuenger on earth. But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sen∣tence in regard of his office, not acknowledging him to be his Superiour, although he do beleiue he is, then properly he is a Schismatike. And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like, for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme, vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope, or of the Church, so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him, to acknowledge him for Superiour &c. Thus Card. Caietane.

22. Now what Authour euer said, that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command, or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape, and not Gregorie, to be the true and lawful Pope. True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some, as Trithemiusz 1.23 re∣lateth, for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church, wrote let∣ters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth, whih did not become his profession, but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church, or that he refu∣sed

to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie, as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour, which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike, or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church, and in deposing Gregorie, and creating Guibert Pope, neither D. Schulckenius, nor a∣ny other is able to prooue out of any ancient or mo∣derne writer.

23. True also it is, that Sigebert was of this opinion, that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Empe∣rour, and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Grego∣rie, and answered, as hee saith, all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers, and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour, acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour, and re∣fused to obey Pope Gregories command, wherein hee strictly ordained, that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour: But con∣sidering that the doctrine for the Popes power to de∣throne temporall Princes, and the practise thereof, was then new in the Church of God, and neuer heard of before, for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie, not to say an heresie, and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie, saith Azora 1.24, concer∣ning this point, betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side, and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other, and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same, and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it, saith Trithemius, and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie, saith Almainus, and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine, saith Pithaeus, and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris (to o∣mit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen) doth most clearely confirme the same, it is neither rea∣son, nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme, for impugning that new doctrine and practise, which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God. And

therefore many complained, saith Az•••• in the same place, that Gregorie the seuenth did depri••e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire.

24 For although the Bishops of Rome, (saith Onu∣phrius, a man, as Posseuine confesseth, of exceeding great reading, and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories) were before honoured, as the heads of Christian Religion, and the Ʋicars of Christ, and the Successours of Peter, yet their authoritie was not exten∣ded any farther, then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith. But yet they were subiect to the Em∣perours, all things were done at the Emperours backe, they were created by them, and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge, or decree any thing concerning them. Gregorie the seuenth, the first of all the Bishops of Rome, being aided with the forces of the Nortmans, trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis, a woman most po∣tent in Italie, and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes, who were at ciuill warre among them selues, contrarie to the custome of his ancestours, contem∣ning the authoritie and power of the Emperour, when hee had gotten the Popedome, did presume, I doe not say, to excommunicate, but also to depriue the Emperour, by whom, if he was not chosen, he was at the least confirmed, of his Kingdome and Empire. A thing not heard of be∣fore that age. For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius, Anastasius, & Leo Iconomachus, I do no∣thing regard. Thus Onuphriusb 1.25.

25 Lastly, it is also true, that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie, and Pope Pas∣chalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes, but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church, or the Catholike Romane Church, as D. Schulckenius affirmeth, vnlesse by the Catholike Church, or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls, and Diuines of Rome, who are appointed by the Pope for the examining, permitting

and forbidding of bookes, (which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church) is altogether vntrue. Neither is it knowne, for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Cata∣logue of forbidden bookes; as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card: Bellarmine, haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls, and especially of Card: Bellarmine, who hath been pleased to be a Iudge, witnesse, and accuser in his owne cause, been prohibited, and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith, but the cause wherefore they are for∣bidden is not therein expressed, neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand, of what crime either in particular, or in generall, I am to purge my selfe, al∣though in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoec 1.26, I haue most humbly and instantly desired it, and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed, which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue, that they haue no small distrust in their cause, and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith, as Card: Bellarmine, and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue.

26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes, wherefore bookes may be forbidden, and which in generall are reduced to these two heads, either that they are repugnant to faith, or else to good man∣ners, which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight, do in so large, yet doubtfull a man∣ner extend, that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie, but some Correctour or other may easily except against it, (as those bookes are to be corrected, which are against Ecclesiasticall

libertie, immunitie, and Iurisdiction, so that if a Canonist be the Corrector, he will haue that blotted ou••, which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls, and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes &c.) vnlesse it can be proued, that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes, for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes, no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue, to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine. Neither can Card: Baronius, nor Card: Bellarmine be excused from gree∣uous detraction, in charging Sigebert, who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned, vertuous, and religious Catholike, with that execrable crime of schisme, for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account, vnlesse they can proue, that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church, or disobey the Popes command, as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church, and the Successour of S. Peter.

27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme, when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope, and whether those, who adhere to a false Pope, perswading themselues for probable reasons, that hee is the true and lawfull Pope, are to be condemned of Schisme, and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes; concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof. This only at this present I will demand, that if to re∣iect the testimonie of Sigebert, or any such like Au∣thour, it be sufficient without any other proofe, to say, as M^r Fitzherbert answereth, that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed, wrote partially in their fauour, why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many o∣thers of the contrarie side, that they liuing in the time

of the Popes, who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours (for this hath euer been a great contro∣uersie, saith Azor, betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side, and the Bishops of Rome on the other) wrote partially in their fauour? May not Popes haue their flatterers, and who doe attribute vnto them more ample authoritie, then is fitting, as of the Canonists Pope Pius the fift affirmed to that learned Nauarred 1.27, as well as Kings and Emperours? See aboue cap: 3. nu. 6. what Parisiensis saith of this flattering.

20 Wherefore to make an end of these Autho∣rities, I will onely request the iudicious Reader, that he will be pleased to consider these two things: first, the reasons which I brought both in my Apologiee 1.28, and also in myf 1.29 Theologicall Disputation, which D. Schulckenius passeth ouer with silence, why there are to be found so few Authours at this present, whose writings are now extant, who deny the Popes autho∣ritie to depose Princes in comparison of those, who doe maintaine the same, which being duely conside∣red, the Reader will easily perceiue, that it is a great maruaile to finde in any Catholike booke any one sentence or clause, which seemeth any way to call in question this temporall authoritie of the Pope: and neuerthelesse there are at this present, and euer haue been, as I haue clearely shewed before, many vertu∣ous and learned Catholikes, who notwithstanding all the clamours, and threatnings of our ouer-violent Aduersaries, are of this opinion, that the Pope hath no such authoritie to depriue Kings and Princes of their temporall dominions.

21 The second is, that if the doctrine of that learned Nauarre, an excellent Diuine, and most skilfull in the Law, (sayth Posseuine) of Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Aurea armilla, of Gabriel Ʋasquezg 1.30 and of other Diuines be true, that in the Court of conscience it be suffi∣cient to this effect, that we shall commit no sinne, to choose

his opinion for true, whom for good cause we thinke to be a man sufficiently learned, end of a good conscience, and that no man is bound to follow alwayes the better opinion, but it sufficeth to follow that opinion, which some skilfull Doctors thinke to be true: how much the more may our Ca∣tholike Countrimen prudently perswade themselues, that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes, which doctrine not onely one learned, and vertuous man, but very many with the State of France do ap∣proue, and who also haue diligently read, examined, and abundantly answered all the reasons, arguments, and authorities, which their learned Aduersaries haue obiected to the contrarie? And this I hope may suf∣fice for the first part, and for clearing all those autho∣rities, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation from all the exceptions, which D. Schulckenius hath taken against them. Now wee will examine the reasons, and intrinsecall grounds of this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num: 12.
• b 1.2

  Num: 30. & seq.
• c 1.3

  Pag. 121. ad num: 31.
• d 1.4

  q. 28.
• e 1.5

  Pag. •• 24.
• f 1.6

  In Prefat. ad Resp. Apol. nu. 36. & seq.
• g 1.7

  In Prolegom. num. 75.
• h 1.8

  Num. 382. & seq. & num. 404. & seq.
• i 1.9

  Ca. 40. & 42.
• k 1.10

  Lib. 2. epist. post. epist. 38.
• l 1.11

  See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51.
• m 1.12

  Num. 404. & seq.
• n 1.13

  In cap. Alius 15. q. 6.
• o 1.14

  Num. 404. & seq.
• p 1.15

  Jn 4. dist. 24. q. 3. circa sinē. de potest. Regia & Papal. c. 15.
• q 1.16

  Num. 382.
• r 1.17

  Ad annum 893. num. 85.
• s 1.18

  Lib. 11. epist. epist. 10.
• t 1.19

  Ad an. 1097. Num. 51.
• u 1.20

  Pag. 100.
• x 1.21

  Pag. 96.
• y 1.22

  2a. 2a. q. 39. ar. 2. in resp. ad 2m.
• z 1.23

  In verbo Sigebertus.
• a 1.24

  Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8.
• b 1.25

  Lib: 4. de varia creat. Rom: Pont.
• c 1.26

  The 24. of Iune 1614.
• d 1.27

  in cap. Non liceat. 12. q. 2. § nu: 6.
• e 1.28

  Num. 449.
• f 1.29

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. nu. 15. & seq.
• g 1.30

  See the Pre∣face. nu. 40. 43.