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 part, (Book 1)

Wherein THOSE AVTHORITIES AND testimonies of learned CATHOLIKES, which M^r. FITZHERBERT cunningly passeth ouer, and for answere to them remitteth his English Reader to D. SCHVLCKENIVS a Latine writer, are briefely, and perspicuously examined.

BEfore I come to examine the particular points of my Ad∣uersaries Reply, and to make manifest his immodest, in∣sufficient, and also vnsincere proceeding therein, I thinke it not amisse, first to set downe the testimonies of those Catholike Authours, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation to proue, that the doctrine for the Popes power to de∣pose Princes is not a point of faith, and the contrarie hereticall (as M^r. Fitzherbert following the steps of Card. Bellarmine, and some few others of his Society would gladly enforce English Catholikes euen with incurring their Soueraignes high displeasure, and with

the vtter ouerthrow of their temporall estates to be∣leeue) to the end the Reader may thereby clearely perceiue both the silly and shuffling answeres of D. Schulckenius, and also the insufficient and craftie dea∣ling of M^r. Fitzherbert, who taking vpon him in this his Reply to satisfie English Catholiks, those especially that vnderstand not the Latine tongue (for otherwise he would doubtlesse haue replyed in Latine, as he by me was answered in Latine) and to make them see, as he saith,a 1.1 a cleare confutation of the grounds of my doctrin, and of my principall arguments and answeres touching the Popes power to depose Princes, which is the maine question betwixt him and me, and specially impugned and abiured in the new oath, neuerthelesse he cleane omitteth to an∣swere my chiefe, principall, yea and only grounds, which I brought to perswade vnlearned men, that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith to wit, extrinsecall grounds, drawne from the testimonie of learned Catholikes, who main∣taine the contrarie doctrine, by which vnlearned men are chiefely, if not only, lead, and for confutation of these grounds he remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer, and wrangleth onely a∣bout intrinsecall grounds, the strength, or weakenesse whereof vnlearned men cannot comprehend, as though, forsooth, M. Fitzherbert, who hath taken out of Fa. Lessius masked vnder the name of D. Singleton, a whole Treatise touching the decree of the Councell of Lateran, and put it here in his english Reply, as though it were the inuention of his owne wit, would haue spared to haue borrowed also of D. Schulckenius the answeres, which he made to those Catholike Authors by me alledged, if he had thought that those answeres would by English Catholikes haue beene so greatly applauded.

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 1.2 He indeed (Henry the fourth) was the first of all the Emperours, who was depo∣sed by the Pope. The Schoolemen, or Scholastikesc 1.3 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 1.42. 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 1.5, a Classicall Do∣ctour, who flourished in Trithemius his time, doth also affirmef 1.6 as I obserued in my Apologie,g 1.7 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 1.8 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 1.9 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 1.10 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 1.11 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 1.12 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 1.13, wherein he affirmeth Trithemius to haue erred in his historie. The first is, in that Tri∣themius affirmetho 1.14 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 1.15 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 1.16 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 1.17, 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 1.18) 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.

Chap. 2.

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 1.19 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 1.20, 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 1.21 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 1.22, 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 M^r. 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 1.23. 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.

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 1.24 and also in my Apolo∣gieb 1.25, was of Ioannes Parisiensis. a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike, and as Trithemius relatethc 1.26, 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 1.27 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 1.28 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 1.29, 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 1.30, 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 1.31, 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 1.32, 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 1.33, 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 1.34, 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 1.35 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 1.36 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 1.37 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 1.38 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 1.39 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 1.40 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 1.41, 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 1.42 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 1.43.

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 1.44 a fa∣mous Doctour of Paris, Durandus a S. P••rtianoy 1.45 a great Schoole-Diuine, yea and the whole Ʋniuersitie of Paris, as witnesseth Ioannes Maiorz 1.46, 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.

Chap. 4.

Wherein the authoritie of M. Doctour Barclay a famous and learned Catho∣like is breifly examined.

1. THe fourth testimony, which I broght both in my Theologicall Disputationa 1.47, and also in my Apo∣logie ^b, was of M^r. Doctour Barclay a most learned man, and yet no more learned then religious, (howsoeuer some falsly and vnchristianly do slaunder him) in his booke de Regno printed at Paris in the yeare 1600. with priueledge of the most Christian King of France, where he affirmeth, that Kings, who doe omit, or are neg∣ligent, to keepe Gods commandements, to worship him reli∣giously,

and to vse all care and diligence, that their subiects do not reuolt from true Religion, and fall into Idolatrie, Iudaisme, or heresie, are to be iudged by God alone, because only to God they are subiect, speaking of temporall iudge∣ment and subiection, although the Pope, being the supreme Prince, and vniuersall Pastour of the Chuch, hath power to condemn with spirituall iudgement all kings and Princes, offending against Gods law, as they are Christians, and children of the Church, and to deliuer them to inuisible tor∣mentours to be punished with the rod of the inuisible spirit, and with the two edged sword of Excommunication.

2. But Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclayc 1.48 little regardeth his authority; and now in his Sculckenius he affirmeth,d 1.49 that Catholikes will make no more account of Barclay, then they do of Marsilius de Padua, and of my selfe (an easie answer to shift off the authoritie of any learned Catholike) And againe, who doth not maruaile, saith D. Schulckenius, that seeing Card. Bellarmine hath in this point clearely and soundly after his accustomed manner confuted Barclay, Widdrington durst not only aduenture to write against him without suffi∣cient ground, but also to oppose the said Barclay, as a testi∣monie of truth against Card. Bellarmine.

3. But notwithstanding this glorious brag of D. Schulckenius so highly commending himselfe, and his cleare and sound confuting of Barclay after his accusto∣med manner, it cannot be denied, but that Doctour Barclay was a very learned man, and liued and died like a vertuous Catholike, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hee was in times past, as Posseuine also relateth,e 1.50 a Counseller to the Duke of Lorraine, and Master of Requests, and in the vniuersity of Mussepont a Professour of the Canon and Ciuill Law, and also Deane, and that his booke was printed at Paris with a speciall priueledge of the most Christian King of France, and is by Posseuine related among other approued bookes, and no exception taken by him a∣gainst it. And therefore who doth not maruell, that

D. Schulckenius durst aduenture so bouldly to affirme,f 1.51 that Catholikes will make no more account of D. Bar∣clay, a famous and learned Catholike, then of Marsilius of Padua, a known and condemned heretike, although not for this point touching the Popes power to de∣pose Princes, but for other his assertions which I rela∣ted in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez Wherefore although perchance some Catholikes doe with Card. Bellarmine make small account of Doctour Barclaies authoritie, as also they would make of the authoritie of any other Catholike, were he neuer so vertuous or learned, that should write against them in this point, neuerthelesse other Catholikes doe greatly re∣gard his authoritie for the aforesaid cause, and they are also perswaded, that they haue as probable reasons to thinke, that he did not write partially in fauour of Princes or any other person, as that Card. Bellarmine did not write partially in fauour of the Pope, and some other of his followers in fauour of him, and their Order.

4 Neither hath D. Schulckenius in very truth any great cause so greatly to vaunt of his cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay, for that both his sonne M^r. Iohn Barclay a learned Catholike hath most clearely shewed the said confutation to be very vnsound, to whom as yet no Reply hath been made, and yet his booke was printed at Paris by the Kings Printer three yeeres since; and also the Bishop of Rochester, a lear∣ned Protestant, hath out of Catholike grounds con∣uinced D. Schulckenius his brag, of the cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay, to be but vaine. wherefore let Card: Bellarmine first make a cleare and sound Reply to the aforesaid Answers, and then he may haue some cause to boast, that he hath clearely and soundly confu∣ted D. Barclay. In the meane time it can not be de∣nyed, but that notwithstanding all the clamours of our Aduersaries, this doctrine, which doth now so

vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes is, and hath euer been impugned by vertu∣ous and learned Catholikes.

Chap. 5.

Wherein the authorities of M^r George Blackwell, and of many other English Priests are at large debated.

1. THe first testimonie, which I brought in my Theologicall Disputationa 1.52, (to which D. Schulc∣kenius doth not answer) was of M^r. George Blackwell a vertuous and learned Catholike Priest, and once the Archipraesbyter of the English Seminarie Priests, who maintayned euen vntill death (for not halfe a quarter of an howre before hee dyed he confirmed the same) the oath to be lawfull, and that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes to which also (be∣sides M^r. William Warmington in his moderate defence of the Oath, M^r. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Card: Bellarmine in defence of his Father, printed at Paris by the Kings Printer; and M^r. William Barres in his booke de Iure Regio, and many other learned Catho∣likes of this Kingdome both Priests and Lay-men, whose names for iust causes I forbare to set downe, for that they had not shewed themselues by publike writings) I added the testimonie of those thirteene Reuerend and learned English Priests (with whom twice thirtie others would haue ioyned, if their protesta∣tion had not been made so suddenly) who, to giue as∣surance of their loyaltie to the late Queene Elizabeth, did by a publike instrument, written in parchment, pro∣fesse, and made it knowne to all the Christian world, that Shee, being at that time excommunicated by name, and depriued by the sentence of Pope Pius the fifth, of hir Regall power and authoritie) had neuertheles as full authoritie, power, and Soueraigntie ouer them,

and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme, as any hir High∣nesse Predecessours euer had. And that notwithstanding any authoritie, or any Excommunication whatsoeuer, ei∣ther denounced, or to be denounced by the Pope against hir Maiestie, or any borne within hir Maiesties Domi∣nions, which would not forsake the defence of Hir, and Hir Dominions, they thought themselues not onely bound in c••••••cience not to obey this, or any such like Censure, but also did promise to yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls.

2 Now it is euident, that this their protestation, which I did at large set downe in my Appendix to Suarezb 1.53, can no way be iustified, but vpon supposall, that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Queene. For if hee had authoritie to depose Hir, Shee being then by the Popes sentence depriued of all hir Regall authoritie, power, and Soueraigntie, could not haue, as they professed, as full authoritie, power, and Soue∣raigntie ouer thē, and all the Subiects of the Realme, as any of hir Predecessours euer had before: Neither also could they (although Shee had not been then deposed) lawfully promise, as out of Suarez I will convince be∣neathc 1.54, that notwithstanding any authoritie, or any Ex∣communication whatsoeuer, either denounced, or to be de∣nounced against hir Maiestie, or any borne within hir Ma∣iesties Dominions, they would neuerthelesse yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls, thinking them∣selues bound in conscience not to obey this, or any such like Censure, vnlesse they did suppose, that the Pope had no power to depose hir Maiestie, or to absolue hir Subiects from their obedience.

3 And if perchance any of those Priests should now be of opinion, that the Pope hath power to de∣pose Princes, and to excuse his former protestation, should answer, that hee onely intended to acknow∣ledge hir Maiestie to be at that time Queene, and to reigne de facto, but not de iure (besides that he should

shew himselfe to be an egregious dissembler, equiuo∣catour, and deluder both of hir Maiestie, and also of his Holinesse, and should therefore deserue to be great∣ly punished, both for deluding the State in a matter of so great weight, and also for bringing Catholike Religion in obloquie among Protestants by such de∣testable dissimulation, not to call it flat lying and co∣soning, which ought to be abhorred of all men, ••••••t especially Catholike Priests, who both by their words and deeds ought to be a patterne to others of Chri∣stian sinceritie) this Answer can not stand with the words which he protested.

4 For first marke the Preamble to their Protesta∣tion, which clearely confuteth the aforesaid answere. Whereas (say they) it hath pleased our dread Soueraigne Lady to take some notice of the faith and loyaltie of vs, her naturall borne Subiects Secular Priests (as it appea∣reth in the late Proclamation) and of her Prince-like cle∣mencie, hath giuen a sufficient earnest of some mercifull fauour toward vs (being all subiect by the lawes of the Realme to death by our returne into the Country after our taking the Order of Priesthood since the first yeere of hir Maiesties reigne) and onely demandeth of vs a true pro∣fession of our Allegiance, thereby to be assured of our fide∣litie to hir Maiesties Person, Crowne, Estate, and dignitie, Wee, whose names are vnderwritten, in most humble wise prostrate at hir Maiesties feete, doe acknowledge our selues infinitely bound vnto hir Maiestie therefore, and are most willing to giue such assurance, and satisfaction in this point, as any Catholike Priests can, or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes. First therefore we acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to haue as full authoritie, power, and Soueraigntie ouer vs, and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme, as any hir Highnesse Predecessors euer had; and further we protest &c.

5 Now were it not an intollerable deluding and mockerie, for any of those Priests (this Preamble con∣sidered)

to affirme, that by the aforesaid words, hee did onely intend to acknowledge her Maiesty to bee Queene, and to raigne de facto, but not de iure? was this the notice, that her Maiesty tooke of the faith of Secular Priests, rather then of Iesuites? and did her Maiesty by those words (and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegeance, thereby to bee assured of our fidelitie to her Maiesties person, Crowne, Estate and Dignitie) demand of them, that thay should acknow∣ledge her to be Queene onely de facto, but not de iure? And can Catholike Priests of other Countries giue to their Soueraignes no other assurance of their loyalty, then onely to acknowledge them to bee their Kings, and to raigne ouer them de facto, but not de iure, as these Priests did acknowledge themselues to bee most wil∣ling to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point vnto her Maiesty, as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes? No man could make doubt, but that shee was Queene, and did raigne de facto, and so much the whole Christian world, and her sworne enemies could not but acknowledge. So that, accor∣ding to this shamelesse answer, those Priests did giue no other assurance of their loyaltie to Queene Eliza∣beth, then any man might giue to a knowen and ma∣nifest vsurper, and by those words to haue as full autho∣ritie, power and Soueraignty as any her Predecessours euer had) did acknowledge her to haue no other power and authoritie, then any knowen vsurper hath, and which her knowen enemies, and who accounted her no lawfull Queene, would also acknowledge her to haue, that is to be Queene, and to raigne de facto, but not de iure.

6. Secondly, although one may truely acknow∣ledge an vsurper to be King, and to raigne de facto, for that this doth onely imply an act, fact, or possession, which may bee without any right at all, yet no man can truely acknowledge, that an vsurper, or who is

King de facto onely, and not de iure, hath authority, which doth import a rightfull and lawfull power, to raigne, and much lesse, to haue as full authoritie and power, as euer any his Predecessours euer had, who were Kings, and raigned not onely de facto but also de iure, or, which is all one, did both actually raigne, and also had full power and authority to raigne.

5 Thirdly, not onely the aforesayd acknowledge∣ment, that her Maiestie, being at that time depriued by the Pope, had neuerthelesse as full power and autho∣ritie, as any her Predecessours euer had before, doth necessarily suppose, that the Pope had no authori¦tie to depriue her, but also, although shee had not beene at that time depriued by the Pope, the other clause of their protestation, which contained a pro∣mise to obey her in all temporal causes, and to defend her &c. accounting it their dutie so to doe, notwith∣standing any authoritie, or any Excommunication whatsoe∣uer denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie, or euerie one borne within her Maiesties Dominions that would not forsake the aforesayd defence of her Maiestie &c. thinking themselues not bound in conscience to obey this or any such like Censure, doth necessarily suppose and imply the same, to wit, that the Pope had no au∣thoritie to depose her, which Fa. Suarez arguing a∣gainst the like clause contained in the new Oath of Allegeance doth most cleerely conuince, whose ar∣gument therfore I will set downe word by word, only turning his speech to the Priests, which he applieth to the Kings Maiestie.

8 For to take away all manner of euasion, saith Suarez,d 1.55 I demand, whether those Priests doe vn∣derstand, that the sentence of the Pope deposing a baptized Queene for crimes may be iust, or they beleeue that it is alwaies vniust. The first they will not in my opinion affirme, for otherwise they should promise a most wicked thing, to wit, not to

obey a iust sentence, which implieth in it a iust command. For if the sentence bee iust, the com∣mand also, which enioyneth subiects to obserue it, must also be iust, seeing that otherwise it cannot be put in execution. Also if the sentence of deposition denounced against a Queene may bee iust, it will also be effectuall, therefore it hath the effect of that punishment which it imposeth. Wherefore seeing that the punishment imposed by the sentence of deposition from her Kingdome, is to depriue her actually, or effectually of her dominion and pro∣pertie to her Kingdome, a iust sentence doth effe∣ctually depriue her of her Kingdome, therefore it is against iustice and obedience due vnto the Pope to resist that sentence, and to defend the Queenes person against the execution of that sentence, there∣fore hee that beleeueth the first, and neuerthelesse promiseth this second, doth promise a thing cleerly vniust and wicked.

9 And besides it implieth a contradiction to be willing to yeeld obedience and allegeance, as thin∣king thy selfe bound so to doe, to one whom thou knowest to be by a iust declaration and sentence ef∣fectually deposed from her Kingdome. As if the Pope himselfe should exact of Christians a promise, that notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of deposing him for any crime euen for heresie de∣nounced by whatsoeuer generall Councell, they will defend him in his See, and will yeelde him the same obedience and allegeance, their promise were wicked, for that it were a wicked thing, and against the Church & Faith. Such therfore is the promise of those Priests, if the aforesaid sentence against the Queene bee supposed to bee iust. This therefore those Priests without doubt will not admit, neither also are they, as I thinke, so inconsiderate of their affaires, that if they grant the Popes sentence de∣nounced

against a Queene may be iust, neuerthe∣lesse they will deny that against the Queene of En∣gland it may haue the same iustice. For what grea∣ter immunitie or innocencie can they alledge in the Queene of England, then in other Princes, who haue beene rebells to the Romane Church, or for∣sakers and impugners of the faith. Or although they do not acknowledge, that the Queene for that time had not committed any thing worthy of de∣position, how doe they know, that for the time to come she cannot? and yet their promise is absolute, notwithstanding any authoritie, or any sentence of Ex∣communication denounced or to be denounced against the Queene, or euery one borne within her Maiesties Do∣minions. &c. Wherefore there is no doubt, but that the ground of this promise and profession is, that such a sentence cannot bee iust. Wherefore from hence we euidently conclude, that those Priests by the aforesaid words do professe, that the sentence of deposition against the Queene can neither be valid nor iust. For in very deede this they doe professe, when they promise not to obey, nor to obserue such a sentence.

10. Whereupon we do moreouer conclude, that those Priests doe professe, that the Pope hath not power to denounce such a sentence, seeing that for no other cause they doe beleiue the sentence to be vniust, but for that it is giuen without power and Iurisdiction in the Pope to depose a Queene. Nei∣ther can those Priests alledge in such a sentence any other cause of iniustice, which is perpetuall, and may be a ground of this part of their profession. for their profession doth not speake of a sentence al∣readie denounced, but absolutely of a sentence de∣nounced or to be denounced against the Queene: ther∣fore it doth comprehend euery sentence, whether it bee giuen the partie being heard, or not heard,

whether for disagreement in religion, or for any o∣ther crime, or cause whatsoeuer. Wherefore the in∣iustice which those Priests do suppose to bee in that sentence and wherupon they ground their professi∣on is no other, but for that they beleeue, that it can∣not proceede from a lawfull power and Iurisdicti∣on. And therefore I conclude that they professe, that the Pope hath not power and Iurisdiction to giue a sentence of deposition against the Queene for any cause.

Thus argueth Father Suarez. So that it is euident, that those thirteene reuerend Priests must of necessitie suppose, if they will haue their protestation and promise to be iust and lawfull, that the Pope hath no power to depriued Princes of their Regall right and authoritie.

11. And by this fift testimonie it is also apparant, that not only M. Doctour Barclay, and Widdrington, as Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay, and now in his Sculckenius against me, vntruely affirmeth, but many other English Catholikes (to omit those o∣ther learned Catholikes of other Countries, of whom I haue spoken before, and the Kingdome and State of France, of which I will speake beneath)g 1.56 are of opi∣nion, that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue So∣ueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions. Which also may moreouer be confir∣med by the petition, which some English Catholikes did exhibite to Queene Elizabeth deceased after the disco∣uerie of Parries conspiracie, wherein these expresse wordes are contained: In consideration of all which ne∣cessarie points, we doe protest before the true liuing God, that all and euery Priest and Priests, who haue at any time conuersed with vs, haue recognized your Maiestie their vndoubted and lawfull Queene tam de iure, quam de facto. who neuerthelesse was at that time and long before depriued of her Princely power, right and dignitie by the publike sentence of Pope Pius the fift.

12. And to these authorities we may add the testi∣monies set downe in the end of M^r. Blackwells Latine examination, of Bishop Watson, Abbot Fernam, Doctor, Cole, Iohn Harpesfield, and Nicolas Harpesfield) all of them very famous and learned Catholikes) who vp∣on the publishing of the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth, being examined by the Magistrate in the yeare 1578. and demanded, whether notwith∣standing the aforesaid Bull, or any other sentence of the Pope denounced or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene, they did thinke, that shee was their true and lawfull Queene, and that they, and all other English and Irish men did as Subiects owe to her Maiesty obedience, faith, and loyaltie, as to their lawfull and true Queene, and Soueraigne Prince, they did all with vni∣forme consent acknowledge, and confesse, that not∣withstanding the aforesaid Bull, or any other sentence or de∣claration of the Pope already denounced, or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene, she was their true, and lawfull Queene, and that they did owe vnto her obedi∣ence and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince. And Ni∣cholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinct∣ly, that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull, sentence and declaration of the Pope, or any other already denounced, or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority, he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene, and was to be obey∣ed, as a true Queene, and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes, as either other Princes haue, or her most noble Progenitours euer had. The like also M. Edward Rishton, and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere.

13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plain∣ly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose, that he did thinke and that be∣fore God, that the Pope hath no authoritie, neither de facto, nor de iure, to discharge the Subiects of the

Queenes Maiestie, or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer, and that he was inwardly perswaded, in his conscience, that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene, and is also so to be ac∣counted, notwithstanding any Bull or sentence, which the Pope hath giuen, shall giue, or may hereafter giue, and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath, if neede require. M^r. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually: As for that, saith he, which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place,h 1.57 that I haue tould him, that my opi∣nion is, the Pope may not depose Princes, indeede I tould him so much. And in truth I thinke, that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the tem∣porall, yet they are both of God, neither doth the one depend on the other. Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion, that the opinion of them, who hold the Pope to be a tempo∣rall Lord ouer Kings and Princes, is vnreasonable, and vn∣probable altogether. For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly, much lesse to depose them, or giue away their Kingdomes: that is no part of his commission. Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church, not a Princehood of the world: Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him, nor giuing it to Peter, or any other of his dis∣ciples. And that is it which I meant to defend in him, and no other soueraigntie.

14 M^r. Camden also relateth* 1.58, that when Fa: Campian, and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate, whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort, that they might take armes against hir Maiestie? whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene? whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders, and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull? whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene, they would take his or hir

part? Some answered so ambiguously, some so headily, others by wranglingk 1.59, or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect, that they harboured some treachery: and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write a∣gainst these men, and did soundly shew, that Constitution, which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran, (whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance, and to depose Princes is grounded) was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third, and neuer receiued in England: yea and that Councell to be none at all, nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers. By all which it is euident, that few English Catholikes were of opinion, that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes, vntill these later Iesuites, and such as adhered to their opinions, began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus, and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid autho∣ritie to depose Princes, as a point of faith, which do∣ctrine how preiudiciall it hath been, and is at this pre∣sent to Catholikes, and Catholike Religion, I leaue, Catholike Reader, to thy prudent consideration.

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 1.60, and also in my Apologieb 1.61 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 1.62 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 1.63 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 1.64 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 1.65, and M^r. Iohn Barclayg 1.66 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 1.67 and also since that M^r. Iohn Barclayi 1.68, to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made, and first, that those words of S. Gregorie,k 1.69 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 1.70 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 1.71 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 1.72 with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologieo 1.73 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 1.74 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 1.75 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 1.76. 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 1.77 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 1.78 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 1.79 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 1.80,) 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 1.81 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 1.82 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 1.83, 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 1.84.

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 1.85, 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 1.86, 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 1.87, and also in myf 1.88 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 1.89 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

  In the Pre∣face, num. 28.
• b 1.2

  In Chroni∣co monast. Hirsaug. ad annum 1106.
• c 1.3

  Scholastici.
• d 1.4

  Pag. 127. ad num. 33.
• e 1.5

  Lib. 2. Instit. cap. 14.
• f 1.6

  In Lib. de Dom. nat, ciu. & Eccl. in pro. 2 ae. concl.
• g 1.7

  Num. 122.
• h 1.8

  De potest. Eccles. consider. 4.
• i 1.9

  In verbo Laurentius Valla.
• k 1.10

  In verbo Dantes.
• l 1.11

  In verbo Sigebertus.
• m 1.12

  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 1.13

  In verbo Ioannes Tri∣themius.
• o 1.14

  In verbo Laurentius Iustin.
• p 1.15

  In verbo Ioachim Ab∣bas.
• q 1.16

  In verbo Dominicus Guzmannus.
• r 1.17

  in Comment. super cap: Non liceat Papae. 12. q. 2. § 3. num: 6.
• z 1.18

  Jn 4^o. dist. 18. q. 1. ar. 1.
• a 1.19

  Jn verbo Albericus Roxiatus.
• b 1.20

  Lib. 2. Iust. cap. 14.
• c 1.21

  In Dictiona∣rio verbo Ele∣ctio.
• d 1.22

  Cap. 10. sec. 2. nu: 18. 19. 20. & 81.
• c 1.23

  Num 404. & seq.
• a 1.24

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num. 7.
• b 1.25

  Num. 121.
• c 1.26

  In verbo Ioannes Pari∣siensis.
• d 1.27

  Almainus de potest. Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8.
• e 1.28

  De potest. Regia & Pa∣pali cap. 14. ad. 20.
• f 1.29

  Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num: 4.
• g 1.30

  in Tract: contra Barcl. cap. 21. pag. 202.
• h 1.31

  in Defensione fides &c. lib. 6. cap: 3. nu. 6.
• i 1.32

  in Tract: contra Barcl: cap. 21. p. 202.
• k 1.33

  De potest. Regia & Pap. cap: 6. 7.
• l 1.34

  Num. 411.
• m 1.35

  Psal: 50.
• n 1.36

  Pag. 394. ad num. 201.
• o 1.37

  Part. 2. ca. 9.
• p 1.38

  Pag. 29.
• q 1.39

  Pag. 380.
• r 1.40

  Pag. 30.
• s 1.41

  In my Latin Appendix a∣gainst Fa: Suarez part. 1. sec. 7 num. 14.
• t 1.42

  De potest. Regia & Pa∣pali c. 21. ad 41.
• u 1.43

  De visib. mo∣narch lib. 7. num 161.
• x 1.44

  quodl. 2. q. 26. & quodl. 10. q. 1.
• y 1.45

  In 4. dist. 17. q. 1.
• z 1.46

  In 4. dist. 17. q. 6.
• a 1.47

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num. 28.
• c 1.48

  Per totum.
• d 1.49

  Pag. 110. ad num. 28.
• e 1.50

  In verbo Gulielmus Bar∣claius.
• f 1.51

  Part. 1. cap. 2. num: 2.
• a 1.52

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num. 9.
• b 1.53

  Part. 2. sec. 1.
• c 1.54

  Num: 7. 8.
• d 1.55

  In Desens. lib. 6. cap. 3.
• g 1.56

  In the next Chapter.
• h 1.57

  Chap. 7. diuis. 7.
• * 1.58

  In Annalibus rerum Anglic. &c. pag. 327. ad ann. 1581.
• k 1.59

  ••••rgiuersando
• a 1.60

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. num: 12.
• b 1.61

  Num: 30. & seq.
• c 1.62

  Pag. 121. ad num: 31.
• d 1.63

  q. 28.
• e 1.64

  Pag. •• 24.
• f 1.65

  In Prefat. ad Resp. Apol. nu. 36. & seq.
• g 1.66

  In Prolegom. num. 75.
• h 1.67

  Num. 382. & seq. & num. 404. & seq.
• i 1.68

  Ca. 40. & 42.
• k 1.69

  Lib. 2. epist. post. epist. 38.
• l 1.70

  See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51.
• m 1.71

  Num. 404. & seq.
• n 1.72

  In cap. Alius 15. q. 6.
• o 1.73

  Num. 404. & seq.
• p 1.74

  Jn 4. dist. 24. q. 3. circa sinē. de potest. Regia & Papal. c. 15.
• q 1.75

  Num. 382.
• r 1.76

  Ad annum 893. num. 85.
• s 1.77

  Lib. 11. epist. epist. 10.
• t 1.78

  Ad an. 1097. Num. 51.
• u 1.79

  Pag. 100.
• x 1.80

  Pag. 96.
• y 1.81

  2a. 2a. q. 39. ar. 2. in resp. ad 2m.
• z 1.82

  In verbo Sigebertus.
• a 1.83

  Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8.
• b 1.84

  Lib: 4. de varia creat. Rom: Pont.
• c 1.85

  The 24. of Iune 1614.
• d 1.86

  in cap. Non liceat. 12. q. 2. § nu: 6.
• e 1.87

  Num. 449.
• f 1.88

  Cap. 3. sec. 3. nu. 15. & seq.
• g 1.89

  See the Pre∣face. nu. 40. 43.