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

Chap. 10.

Wherein the similitude of Pope Innocent the third, who compareth the spirituall and tempo∣rall power to the Sun & Moone, is examined.

1. THe sixt, and last argument, which Card. Bel∣larmine bringth to proue the sbiection of the temporall power to the spirituall, is taken from the au∣thority of Pope Innocent the third, who in cap. Solitae de maioritate & obedientia doth wel, saith he,a 1.1 compare the spirituall & temporall power to the Sun & Moone. There∣fore as the moone is subiect to the Sun, for that she receiueth light from the Sun, & the Sun is not subiect to the Moone, for that the Sun receiueth nothing from the Moon, so also a king is subiect to the Pope, & the Pope is not subiect to a king

2. But first this similitude doth not proue, that the temporall power it selfe is subiect to the spirituall, or, which is all one, that a temporall King is subiect to the Pope in respect of his temporall power, which he doth not receiue from the Pope, but in respect of the light of faith, which a temporall King receiueth from the spi∣rituall power. And therefore as the Moone, when she is eclypsed, & in opposition to the Sun, doth not loose that little light, which, according to the doctrin of the Philosophers and astronomers, she hath of her owne nature, and not deriued from the Sunne, so temporall Princes, when of Catholikes or Christians they be∣come

heretikes, or infidells, and are in opposition to the Pope, do not loose their temporall power, and the light of naturall reason, which they receiue not from the Pope, but only the light of faith and grace, which they did receiue from the spirituall power.

3. Secondly, that, which Card. Bellarmine affirmeth, that the Pope receiueth nothing from temporall Princes is very vntrue, and therefore in this point also that part of the similitude is not fitly applyed. For the Pope hath receiued from temporall Princes all his temporall do∣minion, iurisdiction, and temporall sword, and the whole patrimonie of S. Peter, wherein, as the same Pope Innocent affirmeth,b 1.2 he doth now exercise the power of a supreme temporall Prince. Neither is it only true, that temporall Princes are in spiritualls subiect to the spiri∣tuall power of spirituall Pastours, from whom they re∣ceiue spirituall light, and supernaturall directions by the holy Scriptures & Ecclesiasticall lawes, by which they may see how to liue like good Christians, and to attaine to life euerlasting, but it is also true, that spiri∣tuall Pastours, as inferiour Bishops and Cleargie men are in temporals subiect to the temporall power of temporall Princes, from whom they receiue the in∣crease of naturall light, and ciuill directions by ciuill and temporall Lawes, by which they may see, how to conuerse ciuilly among themselues and other men, and to attaine to temporall peace and quietnesse in the ciuill common-wealth.

4. Whereupon well sayd S. Ambrose,c 1.3 If thou wilt not be subiect to Caesar, doe not haue wordly things, but if thou hast riches, thou art subiect to Caesar. For all men, saith Astensis,d 1.4 are subiect to the Emperour, Lay-men in temporals, and Cleargie men, who doe receiue from him temporals. And Gratian the Compiler of the first and most ancient part of the Canon Law, called the De∣cree, writeth thus:e 1.5 Cleargie men by their office are sub∣iect to the Bishop, by the possessions of farmes or mannours

they are subiect to the Emperour. From the Bishop they receiue vnction, tithes and first fruits, from the Emperour they receiue possessions of farmes or mannours. Ther∣fore because by the Emperiall Law it is made, as he proo∣ueth out of S. Austin, that farmes be possessed, it is mani∣fest that Cleargie men by the possessions of farmes are sub∣iect to the Emperour. See also abouef 1.6 many other Ca∣tholike Authours who doe affirme that Cleargy men are subiect to the directiue power of temporall Prin∣ces. Neither doth Pope Innocent in the aforesayd Chapter denie, but in expresse words affirme, that the Emperour is superiour to those, who doe receiue from him temporals; And therefore this similitude of the Sunne and Moone doth not prooue, that the temporall po∣wer is subiect to the spirituall, or, which is all one, that temporall Princes are in temporals, or as they haue temporall power, subiect to spirituall Pastours, but it rather prooueth the flat contrarie.

5. Yea and Card. Bellarmine himselfe,g 1.7 did for ma∣ny years together hold with Albertus Pighius,h 1.8 that it is the more probable opinion, that S. Paul, (& consequent∣ly the rest of the Apostles) was subiect in temporals to Cae∣sar, not only de facto, but also de iure: from whence sup∣posing another true & vndoubted principle granted also by Card. Bellarmine,i 1.9 that the Law of Christ doth depriue no man of any his right or dominion, it necessarily followeth, that if infidell Princes haue rightfull power and dominion, or iurisdiction ouer Cleargy men, there is no repugnance, but that they may keepe the same power, and iurisdiction ouer Cleargy men, al∣though they become Christians. But Card. Bellar∣mine hath now forsooth in his Recognitions recalled that opinion. I doe not now approoue, saith he,k 1.10 that which I said with Albertus Pighius, that S. Paul did appeale to Caesar, as to his lawfull Prince. And therefore I do persist in the former answer, that S. Paul was subiect to Caesar de facto, not de iure, and did appeale to him, not as his owne

Superiour, but as to the Superiour of the President of Iew∣ry and of the Iewes, by whom he was wronged. For other∣wise he could not free himselfe from that vniust iudgement and danger of a most vniust death, but by hauing recourse to their Prince and Iudge, which hee himselfe did signi∣fie Acts 28. when he saith, I am constrained to appeale to Caesar.

6 If Card. Bellarmine hath vpon sufficient ground recalled either this, or any other of his former opini∣ons, he is truly therefore much to be commended, as likewise is S. Austin, for making his booke of Retracta∣tions. But if she should without sufficient ground not onely recall this opinion, which he for aboue twentie yeeres together in publike print, and for many yeeres before in publike writings had defended for the more probable, but also condemne it for improbable, it being also the common opinion of Diuines, any man might iustly imagine, that affection, not reason moued him thereunto. I doe not approue, saith he,l 1.11 in his Recogni∣tions, that which I said in that place with Albertus Pig∣hius, that S. Paul did appeale to Caesar as to his lawfull Prince. But in his booke against D. Barclay hee goeth much farther. I haue admonished, saith he,m 1.12 in the Re∣cognition of my writings, that the opinion of Pighius, which in times past I did follow, is improbable, and that with better Doctours it is to be affirmed, that the Apostles were exempted de iure from all subiection to earthly Princes.

7. But truly I cannot but maruell, that Card. Bell. could be so much ouerseen, as to affirm, that he did ad∣monish in his Recognitions, that the opinion of Pighius is improbable, seeing that he only saith there, I doe not ap∣proue the opinion of Pighius, &c. But he doth not say, that it is improbable, vnlesse, forsooth, what opinion C Bellarmine doth not approue, although it be approued by other learned Catholikes, must forth with be ac∣counted improbable. Besides I wold gladly know, who be those better Doctours, whom Card. Bellarmine saith

are to be followed against the opinion of Phighius. For my owne part I doe not know what better Doctours there be (abstracting from the ancient Fathers, and Doctors of the Church) if we speake only of the Doc∣tours themselues, and not of the doctrine which they teach; then among the Thomists, Iohn of Paris, Domi∣nicus Sotus, Victoria, Bartholomaeus, Medina, Bannes; a∣mong the Scotists, Richardus de Media villa, Ioannes, Medina, Ioseph Angles; and among the Iesuites, Salme∣ron, Molina, Valentia, Richeome, Salas, and many other Diuines, whom Salas citeth, who doe hold, that Cler∣gie men are not by the law of God & nature, but only by the Ecclesiasticall Canons and priuileges of Prin∣ces exempted from the coactiue power of Secular Ma∣gistrates, and not at all from their directiue power, but that they are subiect to the directiue power of Secular Princes in those things, which doe not repugne to the Ecclesiasticall Canons, and their state, and conse∣quently, that Cleargie men in the time of the Apo∣stles, and long after were subiect to the coactiue power of temporall Princes. Yea and the ancient Fathers, especially S. Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius doe in expresse words affirme,n 1.13 that whether hee be a Monke, a Priest, or an Apostle, hee is according to the do∣ctrine of S. Paul subiect to Secular powers. Only the Ca∣nonists (& yet not all of them, as Pope Innoc: Nauar, and Coverruvias) whom now Card: Bellarm: leauing the Diuines, & his ancient opinion vpon very weake grounds, as you shall see, doth follow, do vehemently defend, that Cleargie men are by the law of God and nature, exempted from all subiection to Secular Princes.

8 Now you shall see, for what reasons Card: Bel∣larmine was moued to recall his former opinion, and to condemne it as improbable. For if the reason, saith heo 1.14, of the exemption of Clergie men be for that they are ministers of Christ, who is the Prince of the Kings

of the Earth, and King of Kinges, truely they are ex∣empted de iure not onely from the power of Christian Kinges, but also of Heathen Princes. If Card. Bellar∣mine meane, that the reason, wherefore the Eccle∣siasticall Canons, and Christian Princes haue exemp∣ted Cleargie men (I doe not say from all subiection, for notwithstanding their exemption they still remaine subiects to temporall Princes, but from paying of tri∣butes, from the tribunall of Secular Magistrates and such like) be, for that they are Ministers of Christ in spirituall, but not in Secular matters, I will not con∣tradict this reason, but from hence it doth not follow that therefore Cleargie men in the time of the Apost∣les, when there were no such positiue lawes of their exemption, were not in temporall causes subiect de iu∣re to infidell Princes.

9. But if Card. Bellarmine meane, that the reason, why Cleargie men are not onely by the Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes of Princes, but also by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subiection to tem∣porall Princes, is, for that they are Ministers of Christ, who is the King of Kings, this reason doth not proue, but suppose, that which is in question, to wit, that Clear∣gie men are by the law of GOD, and nature, exemp∣ted from all subjection to temporall Princes, which the common opinion of Diuines doth constantly de∣ny, whose opinion to account improbable, or temera∣rious for such a weake reason, which doth not proue, but suppose the question, were in my iudgement to ex∣ceede the limits of Christian prudence, and modesty. Neither is there any repugnance in naturall reason, but that the Ministers of Christ, who, as it is proba∣ble, was, according to his humanity, onely a spirituall, and not a temporall King, (and although he was also a temporall King, yet Secular Princes are his Ministers in temporalls, and the Apostles & their Successors are his Ministers in spiritualls) might in temporall causes

be truely, and de iure subject to temporall Princes, as the Apostles them-selues, who are Christ his chiefe Ministers in his spirituall kingdome, and Church, were, according to the expresse doctrine of the anci∣ent Fathers, as they are parts, members and cittizens of the temporall common-wealth subiect to temporall Princes, in their temporal kingdomes, and in temporall affaires. Neither doe those words of Saint Paulp 1.15 I am constrained to appeale to Caesar, signifie, that hee was subject to Caesar onely de facto, and not de iure, more, then if a Priest, being vniustly oppressed by his Ordi∣nary, should appeale to the Pope, and say, that he was constrained, for that hee had small hope to finde iu∣stice at his Ordinaries hands, to appeale to the Pope, signifie thereby, that hee was not subject de iure, but onely de facto to the Pope.

10. An other reason, which mooued Card. Bellar∣mine to recall his former opinion, and to affirme, that Saint Paul did not appeale to Caesar, as to his owne lawfull Iudge but as to the Iudge of the president of Iewrie and of the Iewes, who did vniustly oppresse him, was saith heq 1.16, for that the cause of which they did accuse him being spirituall, to wit, concerning the resurrection of Christ, and the ceremonies of the law of Moyses, could not by right appertaine to a Heathen Prince. See the Acts of the A∣postles chap. 21. 22. 23. 24. & 25.

11. But truely it is strange, that Card. Bellarmine durst so confidently remit his Reader to those chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, to proue, that the cause, whereof Saint Paul was accused by the Iewes to the Tribune, and President of Iewrie, and wherefore he ap∣pealed to Caesar, was spirituall, and not appertaining by right to a Heathen Prince, vnlesse hee will haue the raising of sedition, and tumults, and the committing of a crime worthy of death, not to belong to a Heathen Prince. For it is cleere by those chapters, that the Iewes accused him of sedition, and that he had offended

Caesar, and endeauoured to haue him therefore put to death. We haue found, saith one Tertullusr 1.17, who went to accuse S. Paul before the President Felix, this man pestiferous, and raising seditions to all the Iewes in th•• world, &c. And afterwards,s 1.18 the Iewes before the President Festus obiected against S. Paul many, and gre••∣uous crimes, which they could not proue, but they might easily haue proued, that S. Paul did preach the Resur∣rection of Christ, for that hee confessed the same be∣fore both the Presidents, and King Agrippa: Where∣vpon King Agrippa said to S. Pault 1.19, A little thou per∣swadest me to become a Christian. And beforeu 1.20 S. Paul made answere to the President Festus, that neither a∣gainst the law of the Iewes, nor against the Temple, nor a∣gainst Caesar, haue I any thing offended; which signifi∣eth, that he was accused that he had offended against Caesar. And a little after saith S. Paul to Festus, The Iewes I haue not hurt as thou very well knowest. For if I haue hurt them, or done any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to dye, but if none of those thinges be, whereof they ac∣cuse me, no man can giue me to them, I appeale to Cae∣sar.

12▪ By all which it is very cleare, that the Iewes sought to haue S. Paul put to death, and that all the crimes which they obiected against him, were false, and consequently that he was not accused merely for preaching the resurrection of Christ, which S. Paul would neuer haue denied, but for raising sedition and tumults in the people, and for doing wrong to Caesar. Whereupon S. Chrysostomex 1.21 commendeth S. Paul, that he would be iudged before him whom he was accused to haue wronged. And Card. Bellarmine himselfe, not a∣greable to this his reason, did before in his Controuer∣sies affirmey 1.22, which as yet he hath not recalled, that S Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar, when he was accused for raising sedition and tumults in the peo∣ple. And in that very place of his Recognitions, where

he recalleth his opinion, he doth very plainely insinu∣ate, as you haue seene, that the cause whereof he was accused, was criminall, for which he was in danger saith Card. Bellarmine, of a most vniust death.

13 True it is that S. Paul did preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets, and for this cause they accused him of sedition, and to be a man worthy of death, and therefore he appealed to the tribunall of Caesar, not that Caesar should iudge, whether Christ was risen from death to life, for this indeed had been a spirituall cause, but whether to preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ, according to the predictions of the holy Pro∣phets, were sedition, and a crime worthy to be punish∣ed with death by the Secular Magistrate. Wherefore Festus the President of Iewrie, and King Agrippa, af∣ter that S. Paul had discoursed about the resurrection of Christz 1.23, and King Agrippa had said to S. Paul, A little thou dost perswade me to become a Christian, they all rose vp, and going aside they spake among themselues, saying, that this man hath done nothing worthy of death, or bonds; which answere also made Lycias the Tri∣bune to the President Foelix before in the 23. Chap∣ter.

14 A third reason, which moued Card. Bellar∣mine to recall his former opinion, and that S Paul did not appeale to Caesar, as to his lawfull Iudge, is, for that, saith hea 1.24, it doth seeme to be altogether repugnant to the Gospell, that Christ did not free expresly, and by name S. Peter, and the Apostles from the obligation, wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes. For Christ Mat. 17. did pay the didrachmes for himselfe and Peter, to auoide scandall. For that otherwise neither himselfe, nor Peter were bound to pay that tribute, he did demon∣strate by those words: The Kinges of the earth, of whom doe they receiue tribute or cense? of their children, or of strangers? And Peter answering, of strangers, Ie∣sus

said vnto him, therefore the sonnes are free: by which words he declared, that he was free from all tribute & cense, for that he was the sonne of the King of all Kings, and because when the sonne of a King is free, also his fami∣lie is reputed free, therefore Peter, and the Apostles, who by the gracious fauour of Christ did appertaine to his familie, ought also to be free.

15 But this reason is neither sufficient, nor a∣greable to Card. Bellarmines owne principles. For first Card. Baronius affirmethb 1.25, that this didrachme, which was exacted from our Sauiour in this place, was not a tribute due to Caesar, but onely to God for the vse of the Temple, according to the law of God decreed in the 30. chapter of Exodus: And therefore from this place no sufficient argument can be drawne, accor∣ding to Card. Baronius doctrine, that the Apostes were exempted from paying of tributes, or any other temporall subiection, due to temporall Princes. Yea, and which is more, Card. Bellarmine himselfe in the latter Editions of his Controuersies approueth this Exposition for most true. There be two interpretati∣ons, saith hec 1.26, of this place: Therefore sonnes are free. The former is of S. Hillarie, who affirmeth, that this place is onely meant of the tribute, which God did impose vpon the Children of Israell, Exodus 30. to the vse of the temple, which tribute was properly called a didrachme; and according to this Exposition, which seemeth to vs to be most true, this is the force of the argument. The Kings of the earth, do not exact tribute of their sonnes but of strangers, therefore the King of heauen will not ex∣act tribute of mee, who am his proper and naturall sonne. The second interpretation, which is of S. Hierome, who expoundeth those wordes of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar, seemeth to bee the lesse probable, be∣cause the tribute which was to be paid to Caesar, was not a Didrachme, but a penny, as it is plaine by Math. 22. Shew me the tribute coyne: and they offered him a

penny. Neither can it be demonstrated by any found rea∣son, that the tribute of the Didrachme was wont to be paid to Caesar, but after the Ascension of Christ into heauen. For Iosephus lib. 7. de bello Iudaico cap. 26. doth write that the tribute of the Didrachme, which all the Iewes did pay to the temple euery yeare, should afterwards be brought into the Capitole. Thus Card. Bellarmine.

16 Wherefore it is strange, that hee should now be so forgetfull, as to bring this text of holy Scripture for a reason, why hee changed his former opinion, and which reason also hee saith doth demonstrate, that Christ our Sauiour did expresly, and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Caesar, whereas Card. Bellarmine himselfe, as you haue seene, expoundeth this place not of any tri∣bute to bee paid to Caesar, but onely due to God for the vse of the temple. And therefore small reason had Card. Bellarmine for the aforesaid reasons, which are so weake, and repugnant to his owne doctrine, as you haue seene, to recall his former opinion, which for so long time hee had in publike Schooles, and writings, with the common opinion of Diuines, taught and maintained against the Canonists: but truely he had no reason to condemne for such weak reasons the con∣trary opinion of the Schoole Diuines, of whose pro∣fession he himselfe also is, as improbable.

17 Far more agreeable to reason, and also to Card. Bellarmines profession, hee being a Schoole Diuine, were it for him in my iudgement to returne to his anci∣ent opinion, which the Schoole Diuines doe general∣ly maintaine, and rather to recall some other his o∣pinions, wherein hee plainely contradicteth his owne doctrine, as I haue shewed before: As that our Sauiour by those wordes, therefore sonnes are free &c. Math. 17. did expresly, and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation, wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes, which is flatly repugnant to that, which hee

taught in another place, that these wordes are not meant of any tribute, which was to be paid to Caesar, but onely of the tribute, which God did impose Exod. 30. vpon the children of Israell to the vse of the Temple. And besides that, the cause whereof the Iewes did accuse S. Paul, and for which hee appealed to Caesar, was spirituall,d 1.27 which is cleerely repugnant to that, which hee taught in another place,e 1.28 that S. Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar, and did acknowledge him for his Iudge, when he was accused of raysing sedition, and tumults in the people. And moreouer, (to omit sundry other his con∣tradictions) that the Church of Christ is compoundedf 1.29 of spirituall and temporall power, as a man is compoun∣ded of soule and body, and that the temporall and spiri∣tuall Common-wealth doe make one totall body whereof the Pope is head, as a man is compounded of b••dy and soule, which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in other places, that the Church of Christ is compounded onely of spirituall power, and that the Pope, if wee will speake properly, hath onely spirituall and not tem∣porall power.

18 But secondly although wee should grant, that those words of our Sauiour, therefore sonnes are free &c. were meant of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar and not to the temple, yet Card. Bellarmine him∣selfe did in the former Editions of his Controuersies giue therevnto a very sufficient answer, and which in his latter Editions he hath not confuted. For thus he writethg 1.30: I answer first that this place doth not conuince: for otherwise he should exempt from tributes all Christians, who are regenerate by Baptisme. Secondly I answer, that our Sauiour doth speake onely of himselfe. For he maketh this Argument: The sonnes of Kinges are free from tri∣butes, because they neither pay tribute to their fathers, for that the goods of the parents and children are common, nor to other Kings, because they are not subiect to them, but I am the sonne of the first and chiefest King, therefore I owe

tribute to no man. Wherfore when our Sauiour saith, there∣fore Sonnes are free, from thence hee meant onely to gather this, that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute: of other men hee affirmed nothing.

19 Thus answered Card. Bellarmine in times past, when he followed the opinion of the Diuines, con∣cerning the exemption of Clergy men against the Ca∣nonists, who vrged this place of holy Scriptue to proue, that Clergy men are exempted from paying of tributes by the law of God. But now, forsooth, he for∣saketh the Diuines, and this very text, therefore sonnes are free, which then hee brought for an obiection a∣gainst his opinion, and cleerely answered the same, he bringeth now for a chiefe ground to proue his new o∣pinion, and (which is very remarkable) hee concealeth the answer which he then made to the said obiection: onely hee addeth this: that when the sonnes of Kings are exempted from tribute, not onely their owne persons, but also their seruants and Ministers, and so their families are exempted from tributes. But it is certaine that all Clergie men do properly appertaine to the family of Christ, who is the sonne of the King of Kings. And this our Lord did seeme to signifie when hee said to S. Peter, But that wee may not scandalize them, finding the stater take it, and giue it for me and thee. As though he should say, that both hee, and his family, whereof S. Peter was a chiefe gouernour, ought to bee free from tributes. Which also S. Hierome doth seeme to haue vnderstood in his Commentary of that place, when hee saith, that Clergy men doe not pay tributes for the honour of our Lord, and are as Kings children free from tributes: and S. Austin lib. 1. qq. Euang. q. 23. where he writeth, that in euery earthly Kingdome, the children of that King∣dome vnder which are all the Kingdomes of the earth, ought to be free, (not are free, as Card. Bellarmine affir∣meth S. Austin to say,) from tributes.

20 Thus you see, how Card. Bellarmine runneth

vp and downe from the words of holy Scripture, by which it is demonstrated, saith he, that S. Peter was not bound to pay tribute to Caesar, to the sense which he him∣selfe disproueth, and then from the sense to his pri∣uate collections, and inferences, that if S. Peter was free, all the Apostles were free, and if all the Apost∣les, all Cleargie men. But if it had pleased him to haue also set downe the answere, which in the former Edi∣tions of his bookes he made to this obiection, the Rea∣der would easily haue perceiued, that from this place of holy Scripture no sufficient reason could be gathe∣red to cause him to recall his former opinion, although wee should grant, that those words of our Sauiour were meant of the tribute, which was to be paide to Caesar, of which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine will not haue them to be vnderstood, but onely of the tri∣bute which the children of Israell were by the law of God, Exod. 30. commanded to pay for their soules vn∣to the vse of the tabernacle of testimonie, for at that time the temple was not built. For first, saith he, if this argument did conuince, not onely Cleargie men, but also all Christians, who being regenerate by baptisme are the children of Christ, and also doe properly appertaine to his spirituall familie, or Church, of which, S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles vnder him were chiefe gouer∣nours, should be exempted from paying tributes. Second∣ly, our Sauiour, saith he, doth speake onely of himselfe, who was the sonne of the first and chiefest King, and that he himselfe was not bound to pay tribute: of other men he affirmeth nothing.

21 Thirdly, to the authority of S. Hierome, he an∣swereth, that S. Hierome did not intend in that place, to proue out of the Gospell, that Cleargie men are free from tribute, but onely he doth bring a certaine congru∣ence, wherefore they are freed by the decrees of Pri••ces: for therefore he saith, that they doe not pay tributes as the children of the Kingdome, and he addeth an o∣ther

cause, to wit, the honor of Christ: for he saith, that for his honour Cleargie men doe not pay tributs. Ther∣fore not the law of God, but the decrees of Princes made for the honour of Christ, haue exempted Cleargy men. Thus Card. Bellarmine.

22 Fourthly, to the authority of S. Augustine he an∣swereth, that although Iansenius (whom Salmeron and Suarez doe follow) doth affirme, that S. Austen by the children of the supreme kingdome did vnderstand the na∣turall children of God, and that he spake in the plurall number to obserue the manner of our Sauiours spech, so that the meaning of S. Austen was, that all the naturall sonnes of God if it were possible that God could haue more naturall sonnes then one, should be exempted from paying of earthly tributes: yet Card. Bellarmine doth not like well of this answere, and therefore he thinketh the an∣swere of Abulensis to be the more probable, that S. Aust∣en did not vnderstand naturall children, but Clergie men and Monkes, who, as also S. Hierome affirmeth, in Cap. 17 Mat., were and are free from tributes, as those who appertaine to the familie of Christ. Neither doth it there∣fore from hence follow, that Cleargie men are by the law of God free from tributes. For first, that which S. Austen saith, is not in the words of our Sauiour, but it is onely gathered by a probable consequence, For our Sauiour doth onely speake of the true and naturall children of Kinges, as S. Chrysostome doth expound that place. Se∣condly, our Sauiour himselfe doth allso properly command nothing in this place, that it may be called the law of God, but doth onely shew by the vse and custome of men, that the children of Kinges are free from tributes. Thus Card. Bellarmine answered in his former Editions, which an∣swere in his later editions he altogether concealeth, but for what cause I remit to the iudgement of the pru∣dent Reader.

23 By all which it is apparant that our Sauiour did onely speake of himselfe, and of the naturall children

of Kings, when hee vsed those words, therefore sonnes are free; and of the seruants, or familie, either of Kings, or of the children of Kinges he saith nothing at all; and therefore from an other consequence drawne from the vse, and custome of men, and not from the words of our Sauiour, can it be gathered, that those who are seruants, or of the familie of the children of Kings, are exempted either from subiection to the inferiour magistrates of the kingdome, or from the paying of tributs. But by no probable consequence it can be de∣duced, that those who are either seruants, and of the familie of Kinges children, or also seruants, and of the familie of the King himselfe, are by the custome of a∣ny nation either exempted from subiection to inferiour Magistrates, and much lesse to the King himselfe, or also from paying tributes, vnlesse the King vpon some other speciall consideration doth grant to any of them such a priuiledge.

24 To those words of our Sauiour, But that wee may not scandalize them &c. it is easily answered accor∣ding to the first exposition of that didrachme, which Card. Bellarmine thinketh to be most true, that it was a tribute due to the temple or tabernacle, and not to Cae∣sar: For I doe willingly grant, that S. Peter, who was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe gouer∣nour of his Church and temple, was exempted from paying tribute to the temple. But although we should admit, that the aforesaide didrachme was a tribute due to Caesar, and not to the temple, yet from those words of our Sauiour, no sufficient argument can be drawne to proue, that S. Peter, and especially the rest of the Apostles, were by the law of God exempted from pay∣ing tributes, and much lesse from temporall subiecti∣on to Heathen Princes.

25 First, for that we may probably answere with Iansenius, and Abulensis, that Christ did speake to S. Peter in the plurall number, [but that wee may not scan∣dalize

them] not for that S. Peter was bound to pay tribute onely by reason of scandall, but either because our Sauiour did speake of his owne person, vsing the plurall number for the singular, as it is vsuall, especially among great persons; we are wont, saith S. Epiphani∣ush 1.31, to speake singular thinges plurall, and plurall singu∣lar. For wee say, wee haue tould you, and we haue seene you, and we come to you, and yet there be not two who speake, but one who is present: or else because the scan∣dall, which Christ should haue giuen, would in some sort haue redounded to S. Peter, as being a mediatour in that businesse. And therefore, as well affirmeth Ian∣seniusi 1.32, our Sauiour did pay tribute for himselfe onely to auoid scandall & for S. Peter to honour him as with a cer∣taine reward for his faith, obedience, and diligence, as a mediatour of this busines, and an executor of the Miracle of finding the stater in the fishes mouth, or as Barradius the Iesuite, and others doe affirmek 1.33, to honour him a∣boue the rest, as the Prince of the Apostles, and the head of the Church. See Abulensis, q. 198. 199. and 200. in cap. 17. Mat. and Barradius vpon this place.

26 Secondly, although wee should grant, that our Sauiour did for some speciall cause exempt S. Peter from paying tribute to Caesar, either by a personall pri∣uiledge, or else reall, and descending to his successors, it doth not therefore follow, that he did exempt him from all ciuil subiection to temporal Princes, as neither doth it follow, that because the Children of Kinges, for that their goodes and their fathers are common, or any of the Kinges seruants are by speciall priuiledge exempted from paying tributes, they are therefore ex∣empted from all ciuil subiection and alleagiance to the King.

27 Thirdly, for that there is no probabilitie in my iudgment, that either Christ did by those words in∣tend to exempt the rest of the Apostles, seeing that there is no mention at all made of them in that place,

or also that this priuiledg of exemption is extended to S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, in regard onely that they were of the spirituall familie, or Church of Christ (I say of the spirituall familie, for that I will not deny, but that as they were of his corporall fami∣lie, and liued with him here on earth, and had no cor∣porall goods but such as belonged to Christ, they were exempted from paying tributes, but not from ciuill subiection to Heathen Princes) because the exempti∣on of seruants with their Maister, or of those, who are of the familie of Kinges Children with the Kinges Children themselues, is not grounded in the law of nature, but onely in a certaine congruity, and cust∣ome of men, from which custome this argument to exempt the Apostles, for that they were of Christs fa∣milie, is drawne: but there is no such custome among nations, that the seruants or familie of Kinges Children or of the King himselfe, are exempted from paying tributes, although the children of Kinges hauing no o∣ther goodes, then which are their fathers, be exemp∣ted, as Card. Bellarmine a little aboue affirmed. But howsoeuer, neither the seruants to Kinges children, nor the kinges children themselues, are exempted from ciuill subiection, or from the directiue, or coerciue pow∣er of the King.

28 And therefore neither Fa. Suarez, who hand∣leth this question at large, dare affirme, that from those words of our Sauiour it can certainely, but onely probably be gathered, that this exemption was exten∣ded to the rest of the Apostles. I answere, saith heel 1.34, that it is true, that Christ did not say plainly, that the fa∣milie is exempted with the children, neither doth it follow by any euident, or necessary consequence, and therefore the aforesaid opinion, for as much as belongeth to this part, is neither of faith, nor altogether certaine. Neuerthelesse it is most likely, that this extention to the rest of the Apost∣les is according to the intention of Christ,

29. But truely, although there may be alleadg∣ed some probable congruities, wherefore our Sauiour might grant some speciall prerogatiue, and priuiledge of exemption to S. Peter, whom he had chosen to be the first and principall head and gouernour of his Church, rather then to the rest of the Apostles, as likewise the Diuines doe yeeld probable congruities, wherefore God almighty might giue to the B. Virgin Mary, whom he had chosen to be the mother of his immaculate Sonne, a speciall prerogatiue and pri∣uiledge of exemption from originall sinne, but whe∣ther he did grant that priuiledge or no, it cannot cer∣tainely be proued, neuerthelesse for my owne part I doe not see any probable likelihood, that our Sauiour should giue to the rest of the Apostles, and much lesse to all Cleargie men, any speciall priuiledge of exemp∣tion from all ciuill subiection to temporall Princes. And therefore the most part of the Schoole Diuines, yea also and of the Iesuites themselues doe hould, that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes, in all those thinges, which are not re∣pugnant to their state, nor to the Ecclesiasticall Canons, and consequently that they are not exempted from all subiection and obedience, and from the directiue or commanding power of Secular Princes, but that they are bound not onely by force of reason, but also by vertue of the law, and of their due obedience, to ob∣serue such ciuill lawes.

30 A fourth reason which Card. Bellarmine bring∣ethm 1.35 wherefore he recalled his former opinion, and why the Apostles were not de iure subiect to temporall Princes, is because they are appointed by God Princes o∣uer all the earth, as wee read in the 44. Psalme. For although that principality was spirituall, not temporall, yet it was true principallity, and farre more noble then temporall principallitie. But this reason is not sufficient, for as I obserued in my Apologie,n 1.36 the same man be∣ing

considered diuerse waies may be subiect, and su∣periour; subiect in temporalls, and supreame in spiritu∣als, and contrariwise; neither is temporall subiection repugnant to spirituall authority, nor temporall authori∣ty repugnant to spiritual subiection: neither from hence doth it follow, that either temporall authority it selfe, is subiect to spirituall power, or spirituall power sub∣iect to temporall authority, but onely that the same man, who is superiour in temporalls, is subiect in spiritualls, and who is superiour in spiritualls is subiect in temporalls, as the same man who is a Musition may be subiect and seruant to a Physition, or contrariwise, and yet it doth not from hence follow, that Mu∣sicke it selfe is subiect to Physicke, or contrariwise.

31 And if Card. Bellarmine doe answere, as he doth in his Schulckeniusn 1.37, that when the powers are e∣quall, it may perchance fall out, that the same compared diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour, but if the pow∣ers be vnequall, and one subordained to an other, as are spirituall and ciuill power, it cannot fall out, that the same man be subiect to him who is his superiour, this answere is also as insufficient as the former. First, for that the temporall power it selfe is not subordained to the spiri∣tuall, as I haue shewed before: for otherwise tempo∣rall Princes should not onely in spiritualls, but also in mere temporalls be subiect to spirituall Pastours, as if Musicke it selfe be subiect to Physicke, a Musition, as he is a Musition, and in all thinges belonging to Musicke, should be subiect to Physicke, and conse∣quently to a Physition, as he is a Physition. Secondly, for that it is the common opinion of the Schoole Di∣uines, and also of the Iesuites, that Cleargie men are subiect to the directiue temporall power, or command of temporall Princes.

32 Thirdly, for that there is no repugnance, but rather a necessary consequence, that spirituall Princes, not as they are spirituall Princes, but as they are true

parts and members of the temporall common wealth, should be subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes, for euery member, sai••h Card. Bellarmine,o 1.38 ought to be subiect to the head, and Cleargie men, besides that they are Cleargie men, are also citizens and parts of the ciuill common wealth, as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth in an other placep 1.39, and the King is head of the politike or ciuill body, as also in his Schulckenius, he expresly affirmethq 1.40. Fourthly, for that Card. Bellarmine is al∣so now of opinion, at least wise he was when he wrote against D. Barckley, that it is probable, that the Priests of the old law, who had true spirituall power, and were true spirituall Princes, were subiect to Kinges, and ther∣fore for this reason to recall his former opinion, and especially to condemne it as improbable, were both to contradict himselfe, and also to condemne of temeritie the learnedst Schoole Diuines of this age, and also of his Societie.

33 These be all the principall reasons, which I can finde in Card. Bellarmine, for which he was moued to recall his former opinion, and to condemne it as impro∣bable, which how probable they be, or rather very insufficient to moue such a learned man, as Card. Bel∣larmine is, to forsake the Schole Diuines, and to fly to the Canonists, who as pope Pius the fift sincerely con∣fessed,r 1.41 doe attribute to the Pope more authoritie then is fitting, and to censure so rigorously, and rashly the learnedst Catholikes of this age, and also of his owne Societie, of temeritie, I remit to the iudgement of the discreete Reader, as also to consider, whether reason, or affection to aduance the Popes authoritie moued him not onely to recall his former opinion, but also to condemne it as improbable.

33 Lastly, that the Reader may haue some know∣ledge of the true state of the question concerning the authority of spirituall Pastors to exempt Clergy men from the power of Secular Princes, for that some Di∣uines

are of opinion, that from the exemption of Cler∣gy men a strong Argument may bee drawne to p••oue that a spirituall Prince or Pastor hath power to depose or depriue a temporall Prince, who is subiect to him in spiritualls, of his temporall Kingdome and Domini∣ons. First therefore the true state of the question be∣twixt mee and my Aduersaries is, not concerning the exemption of Cleargie men by way of command, for I doe willingly grant, that a spirituall Prince, or Pastor as hee is a spirituall Pastor, hath power to command a Christian Prince, who is subiect to him in spiritualls, not to exercise his temporall power in some cases, if the necessity of the Church, or Christian Religion doth require it, ouer the persons of Clergy men, who are his temporall Subiects: so that if a secular Prince should disobey the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastor, hee should offend against the vertue of Religi∣on, for the which offence his spirituall Pastor might punish him with Ecclesiasticall censures: and of this manner of exemption by way of command, and spiritu∣all coercion, all the Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells. which doe signifie. imply, or suppose that Clergy men may by the authority of the Church with∣out the consent of temporall Princes bee exempted from secular powers, either touching their persons or their goods, may bee very well vnderstood: I said if the necessity of the Church doth require it; for at this pre∣sent I will not enter into particulars, what manner of necessity is required, that a spirituall Pastor may im∣pose such a command vpon his temporall Prince.

34 But the controuersie betwixt mee and my Ad∣uersaries betwixt those Catholikes who are so vehe∣ment for the Popes power to depose Princes, and those on the contrary side is, whether spirituall Pastors, as they are spirituall Pastors, or by vertue of their spiri∣tuall power, haue not onely by way of command, and spirituall coercion, but also by way of sentence authori∣ty

to exempt without the consent of Princes Clergy men, who before were subiect to them in temporalls, from the directiue, and coerciue power of secular Prin∣ces, in such sort, that after the sentence of such exemp∣tion bee giuen, Clergy men are no more the subiects of that secular Prince, for that his spirituall Pastor doth depriue him of that ciuill power, which before the sentence hee had ouer Clergy men: And what is said of particular Bishops, in respect of Princes who are their spirituall children, is to bee vnderstood of the Supreme spirituall Pastor in respect of all Christian Princes, who are subiect to him in spiritualls. This is the true state of the question.

35 So that the Reader may clearely perceiue, that although from the first manner of exemption, by way of command, and spirituall coercion, no good argument can be drawne, to proue, that the spirituall power can depose Princes, and depriue them of their Regall authoritie, by way of sentence, yet there is great coherence betwixt these two questions concerning the power of spirituall Pastors to depose Princes by way of sentence, and their power to exempt by way of sentence Cleargie men from all subiection to Secu∣lar Princes. For the first question is whether the spiri∣tuall power can by way of sentence depriue temporall Princes of all their temporall power, and absolue all their Subiects from their temporall alleagiance: and the second is, whether it can depriue them of some part of their temporall power, and absolue some of their subiects from their temporall allegiance. And therefore those Catholikes who doe grant the second, will easily grant the first, and who doe grant the first, must of necessity grant the second, for that there can be no sufficient reason alleadged, why the spirituall power can in order to spirituall good depriue Princes of some part of their Regall authoritie, and not of all, and absolue some subiects from their temporall allegi∣ance,

and not all; and if it can depriue o•• all, i•• must needes follow that it can also of some part. And con∣trariwise those Catholikes, who affirme, that the spi∣rituall power cannot exempt, ot absolue Cleargie men from their temporall allegiance and subiection to tem¦porall Princes, must consequenily affirme, that it can not exempt or absolue all subiects from their tempo∣rall allegiance: and who affirme, that it can not ab∣solue, or exempt all subiects from their temporall al∣legiance, nor depriue a temporal•• Prince of all his Re∣gall authority, will easily affirme, that it cannot ex∣empt or absolue Cleargie men from their temporall al∣leagiance and subiection, nor depriue a temporall Prince of any part of his Regall authority.

36 But some doe greatly vrge this obiection: If the spirituall power can command temporall Princes not to exercise their temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men, without the consent of their Ecclesiasticall superiour, it doth consequently follow, that a temporall Prince doth offend, if he trans∣gresse the iust and lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour, and therefore it seemeth, that a temporall Prince hath no power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men after such a command, supposing it to be lawfull, vnlesse wee will grant, that a temporall Prince hath power to commit sinne, and to transgresse the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour.

37 To this obiection (wherewith I haue knowne diuers men of learning to bee somewhat perplexed) those Catholikes, who deny that the spirituall power can depriue by way of sentence, a temporall Prince of his Regall Authority, either wholly or in part, may easily answer in this manner: that if a temporall Prince doth excercise his temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Clergy men against the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour, hee sinneth indeed against Religion, and the generall vertue of obedience, in

that hee vseth his power contrary to the lawfull com∣mand of his spirituall Pastour, but hee doth not sinne against the speciall vertue of legall, or morall iustice, in vsing his authority ouer them, who are not his sub∣iects, and ouer whom hee hath no temporall power and Authority, in that manner as another man, who is not their Prince, should offend. Neither is it vn∣vsuall for a man to commit a sinne in doing that which in respect of iustice hee hath power and authority to doe.

38 As for example, it is a sinne against the vertue of liberality for one to giue away his goods prodigally, although if wee respect iustice hee hath true and full power to giue them away, for that he giueth nothing but that, which is his owne: and therefore that prodi∣gall guift, although it be vnlawfull, yet is not vniust, as iustice is taken, not as it comprehendeth all vertues in generall, but in particular for a speciall vertue, and one of the foure Cardinall vertues. So also it is a sin against the vertue of temperance to giue money to commit an vnhonest act, and yet the gift is not vniust for that hee giueth nothing but his owne, and which according to iustice hee hath power to giue. So like∣wise if a Ghostly father command his penitent to giue a certaine part of his goods to the poore in satisfaction of his sinnes, if the penitent doe bestow them other∣wise then hee was commanded, hee sinneth against the vertue of Religion and Sacrament of pennance, in transgressing his Ghostly fathers lawful command, but he committeth no iniustice, because hee giueth that which is his owne, and which, if wee regard the ver∣tue of iustice, hee hath power to giue: neither doth the command of his Ghostly father depriue him of the right, dominion, property and power, which he had before ouer those goods.

39 Lastly, if the Pope should vpon iust cause suspend a Priest from the Altar, or a Bishop from his Episco∣pall

function, and consequently forbid the Priest to consecrate, and the Bishop to giue orders, if they should disobey the Popes lawfull command, they should sinne against the vertue of Religion, in vsing their power vnlawfully, but they should not sinne for doing that which they haue no power to doe, as hee who is no Priest or Bishop should in consecrating or giuing orders offend, for that the power of a Priest to consecrate and of a Bishop to giue orders, cannot ei∣ther wholly or in part bee taken away from them by the Pope. So likewise although a spirituall Pastor should for iust cause forbid a temporall Prince, who is his spirituall child, and subiect, to excercise his Regall power and authority ouer Clergy men, if that tempo∣rall Prince should heerein transgresse the command of his spirituall Pastor, supposing it to bee lawfull, hee should indeed offend against religion, in vsing his Re∣gall power and authority contrary to the lawfull com∣mand of his spirituall Pastor, which command was im∣posed for the motiue of Religion, neuerthelesse hee should not offend against iustice, in doing that which hee hath no power and authority to doe, in that man∣ner as another man, who is not their Prince, should by depriuing them of their goods, or punishing their persons if they transgresse the lawes, offend. For that it is not in the power of a spirituall Pastor to de∣priue a temporall Prince either wholly or in part of his Regall power, and temporall Soueraignty.

40 Wherefore if wee respect the power it selfe, and the vertue of legall or morall iustice, a temporall Prince hath full, ample, and supreme royall power and authority ouer Clergy men, notwithstanding that his spirituall Pastor should for iust cause command him not to exercise his Regall power vpon the persons of Clergie men, who doe offend his lawes: but if wee respect rhe vse and execution of the power, and the vertue of religion, the vse indeed of his power in the

aforesaid case is so limited by the lawfull command of the spirituall Pastor, that the Prince vsing his power ouer Clergy men, sinneth against Religion, for that hee disobeyeth the lawfull command of his spirituall Superiour, which was imposed for the motiue of reli∣gion, but not against iustice for that hee doth not ex∣cercise his Regall power but vpon those who are his Subiects, and doe owe vnto him true loyalty and tem∣porall obedience.

41 And truely if the aforesaid obiection were of force, that the temporall Prince hath no power or au∣thority ouer Clergie men, who are subiect to him in temporalls, against the lawfull command of his spiritu∣all Pastour, because he hath no power to sinne, it would likewise follow, that a suspended Bishop, or Priest, haue no power to giue orders, or to consecrate, because they haue no power to sinne; and a penitent hath no lawfull right, or power to sell, or giue away his goods against the lawfull command of his Ghostly Father, because he hath no power to sinne; and a man hath no power, or right to giue money to a dishonest end, or to giue away his goods prodigally, and con∣sequently they should be restored back againe, because he hath no power to sinne. I will say nothing at this time, how farre Cleargie men, either by the priui∣ledges of Christan Princes, or by the Ecclesiasticall Canons are de facto exempted both in their goods, and in their persons from ciuill powers, but onely I thought good at this time to set downe the true state of the question among Catholikes concerning the au∣thority of spirituall Pastours to exempt Cleargie men from the temporall power of Christian Princes, that thereby they may clearely perceiue, what kinde of ar∣gument may be drawne from the exemption of Clear∣gie men, to proue the Popes power to depose Princes, and by way of sentence to depriue them wholy of their Regall authoritie.

42 Thus you haue seene in what manner tempo∣rall thinges are subiect to spirituall, temporall endes to spirituall endes, temporall power to the spirituall pow∣er, the temporall sword to the spirituall sword, the flesh to the spirit, the Moone to the Sunne, and tem∣porall Princes to spirituall Pastors; and that from the subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall, no good argument can be brought to proue, that the Pope, by vertue of his spirituall power can dispose of temporalls, depose temporall Princes, or punish temporally by way of coercion, but onely that in order to spirituall good he can command temporalls, and punish temporally by way of command, but by way of coercion onely with spirituall, and not with temporall punishments. And by this which hath bene saide, the Reader may easily vnder∣stand the true sense and meaning of a certaine proposi∣tion, which Card. Bellarmine in his Schulckenius doth often inculcate (as though there were some great my∣stery lye hidden therein) to proue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes, to wit, that a Christian Prince is a child of the Church, and subiect to the Pope, not one∣ly as he is a Christian man, but also as he is a Christian Prince; and the same he affirmeth of a Christian ••awyer, of a Christian Souldier, of a Christian Physitian, and so of the rest.

43 For all these three propositions, A Christian Prince, as he is a Christian Prince, is a child of the Church, and subiect to spirituall Pastours: A Christ∣ian Prince as he is a Christian is a Child of the Church, and subiect to spirituall Pastours: and a Prince as he is a Christian, is a Childe of the Church and subiect to spirituall Pastours; haue one and the selfe same sense; and so likewise of a Christian Lawier, of a Christian Soldier, of a Christian Physitian &c. For the true mea∣ning of them all is, that Christianitie, and not Regall authority, or the knowledge of lawe, warfare, or

Physicke, is the cause why a Prince, a Lawier, a Soldier, a Physitian, and all other men of what trade soeuer they be, are Children of the Church, and sub∣iect to spirituall Pastours; and that therefore they are to be directed and instructed by spirituall Pastours, not precisely in the rules of ciuill gouernment, in the rules of lawe, warfare, or Physicke, but onely in the rules and principles of Christian doctrine, and how they ought to gouerne ciuilly, and vse their knowledge and trades according to the rules and precepts of Christian Religion: which if they refuse to doe, they may be corrected and punished by spirituall Pastours, with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall punishments.

44 But from hence it doth not follow, that ei∣ther temporall power, the knowledge of the lawe, warfare, or physicke, are among Christians per se sub∣iect to the spirituall power, but onely per accidens, as I haue often declared, and in those thinges, which doe concerne or belong to Christian Religion, or that spirituall Pastours can by vertue of their spirituall pow∣er correct, or punish Christian Princes, Lawiers, Sol∣diers, Physitians &c. by depriuing them by way of sentence of their Regall authoritie, of their skill and knowledge in the lawes, in warfare, or Physicke, which they did not receiue from the spirituall power, but onely by depriuing them of the Sacraments, and such like spirituall benifites, of which they are made partakers by being Christians, and by meanes of the spirituall power and authority of spirituall Pastours. And thus much concerning the vnion and subiection of the temporall and spirituall power, and also of the second part.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In tract. con∣tra Barcl: c. 13. in fine.
• b 1.2

  In cap. per venerabilem qui filij sint legitimi.
• c 1.3

  Lib. 10. in Lucā. cap. 20.
• d 1.4

  In summa. lib. 2. tit. 39.
• e 1.5

  Causa 11. q. 1. cap. 11.
• f 1.6

  Cap. 6. nu. 13. 14. 15. & cap. 7. nu. 12. 13.
• g 1.7

  Lib. 2. de Ro. Pont. cap. 29.
• h 1.8

  Lib. 5. hierach. Eccles. cap. 7.
• i 1.9

  Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. & lib. 5. cap. 3.
• k 1.10

  Pag. 16.
• l 1.11

  Pag. 16.
• m 1.12

  Cap. 21. pag. 206.
• n 1.13

  Ad Rom. 13.
• o 1.14

  In his Recog∣nitions, pag. 16.
• p 1.15

  Act. 28.
• q 1.16

  In tract. con∣tra Bard. cap. 3 pag. 51.
• r 1.17

  Act. 24.
• s 1.18

  Act. 25.
• t 1.19

  Act. 26
• u 1.20

  Act. 25.
• x 1.21

  Hem. 51. in Act.
• y 1.22

  Lib. 2. de Rom. Pon••. cap. 19.
• z 1.23

  Act. 26.
• a 1.24

  In tract. con∣tra Barclaium. cap. 3. pag. 49.
• b 1.25

  Ad ann. Christi 33. nu. 31.
• c 1.26

  Lib. 1 de Cle∣ricis cap. 28. in propos. 4.
• d 1.27

  In tract. con∣tra Barcl. cap. 3 pag. 51.
• e 1.28

  Lib 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29.
• f 1.29

  See aboue cap. 2.
• g 1.30

  lib. 1. de Cle∣ricis Cap. 28.
• h 1.31

  In the here∣sie of the Ma∣nichies.
• i 1.32

  In C••ncord. Euang. cap. 69. in Mat. 17.
• k 1.33

  In cap 17. Mat. ••om. 2. Lib. 10. cap. 32.
• l 1.34

  In defens. fid•• Ca••••o & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap. 8. in sine.
• m 1.35

  In tract. contra Barcl. cap. 3. pag. 50
• n 1.36

  nu. 68. & seq
• n 1.37

  Pag. 172.
• o 1.38

  Li•• de Mo¦nachis. cap. 19.
• p 1.39

  Lib. de Cle∣ricis. cap. 28.
• q 1.40

  Pag. 339.
• r 1.41

  Nauar. super cap. non liceat Papa•• 12. q. 2 55. 3••. nu. 6