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

Chap. 6.

Wherein is examined the second argu∣gument taken from the vnion of Kings, and Bishops, Clerkes and Laikes in one Church.

1. THe second argument, which Card: Bellar∣mine bringetha 1.1 to proue, that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian, but also as it is ciuill, is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall, as it is Ecclesiasti∣call, is this: Kings and Bishops, Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one, to wit, one Church. Rom: 12. & 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected, and one dependeth on the other, but it can not rightly be said, that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall, therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spi∣rituall, and are subiect to them.

2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered beforeb 1.2, that Kings and Bishops, Clearkes and Laikes, being diuerse waies considered, doe make two totall, and not onely one totall body or common-wealth. For as they are referred to the Ec∣clesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pa∣stour, to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals, they make one totall body or common-wealth, to wit, the Catholike Church, which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ, but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes, to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals, as all members are subiect to the head,

they make another body or common-wealth, to wit, earthly kingdomes, as before I declared more at large. And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument, the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false.

3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof, and to shew most plainely, that not onely his Maior proposition, as I haue prooued before, but also his Minor is apparantly false, I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor,

that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected ei∣ther immediately, or mediately to the head, vpon whom they all depend, yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other, there is no man so ignorant that will affirme: for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other, nor one arme vpon the other, nor one shoulder vpon the o∣ther, but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues, or to other members, to which they adhere. May it not, I pray you, by the same manner of arguing, and by the very same argument be concluded thus: The armes or euery man are members of one body, but in euery bodie the members are connected, and depending one vpon the other, but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left, therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right, and is subiect vnto it. Who would not skorn such foolish arguments?

4. To this answer Card. Bellarminec 1.3 replieth in this manner. That which I sayd, that the members of the same body are connected, and that one doth depend vpon another, I vnderstood of members of a diuerse kinde, as is a finger, a hand, an arme, a shoulder and a head, and not of members of the same kinde, as are two hands, two feet, two eyes, two eares. For the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power, whereof we speake, are of a diuerse kinde, as it is manifest,

and words are to bee vnderstood according to the matter, which is treated of, otherwise there could not bee any de∣monstration so certaine, against which there could not bee brought some cauill. Therefore Kingly power, which is principall in his kinde, if it compound one body with the Ec∣clesiasticall power, which also in his kinde is principall, must of necessitie be either subiect, or superiour, least that in one bodie there be two heads; and seeing that it is manifest e∣nough, that the Pope is head of the Church in steede of Christ, it doth plainely follow, that a King must either bee no member of this body, or else hee must bee subiect to the Pope, and in the same manner the ciuill power, which doth chiefely reside in the King, must either bee subiect to the spirituall, which doth chiefely reside in the Pope, or else it must remaine out of the Church; in that manner as a fin∣ger cannot be in the body, which doth not depend vpon the hand, nor a hand, which doth not depend vpon the arme, nor an arme, which doth not depend vpon the shoulder, nor a shoulder, which doth not depend vpon the head.

5. But that, which Barclay saith a little after, that the spirituall and ciuill power are as two shoulders in a body, whereof neither is subiect to the other, but both of them are subiect to one head, which is Christ, is not onely false, be∣cause those powers are not of the same kinde; that they may be compared to two shoulders, but also it appertaines to the heresie of this time. For what doe the heretikes of this time more endeauour to perswade the people, then that the Pope is not the visible head of the body of the Church, vn∣to whom all Christians, if they will be saued, must bee sub∣iect? But this Barclay of his owne accord doth grant them, who neuerthelesse in all his booke doth make himselfe a Ca∣tholike: Therefore the spirituall and ciuill power are not well compared to two shoulders, but they ought either to bee compared to the spirit and flesh, as did S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the place often cited compare them, or else to the shoulder and head, to wit, principall members, wher∣of neuerthelesse the one, although of it selfe very strong and

potent, ought to bee directed and gouerned by the other, which is superiour.

6 But this Reply of Card: Bellarmine, although at the first sight may seeme especially to the vnlearned to haue in it some shew of probabilitie, yet to the iu∣dicious Reader, who will be pleased to examine it more exactly, it will clearely appeare, to be in very deede very vnsound and fallacious, to D. Barclay very iniurious, to Catholike religion very scanda∣lous, and in very truth to haue in it no probabilitie at all,d 1.4 as M^r. Iohn Barclay in his answer to Card. Bellar∣mine hath most clearely convinced. And first, where∣as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth, that when he said, that members of the same body are depending one vpon the other, he vnderstood of member•• of a diuers kinde, as is a finger, a hand, an arme, a shoulder, a head, and not of members of the same kind, as are two hands, two feet &c.

M^r. Barclay replyeth, that it is vntrue, that mem∣bers of a diuerse kind are depending one vpon the other, as the hand doth not depend vpon the foot, the liuer vpon the lights, the splene vpon the shoul∣ders, &c.

7 And as for those examples, which Card. Bel∣larmine doth bring, hee vseth therein great deceipt, for neither doth the finger for that cause depend vpon the hand, nor the hand vpon the arme, nor the arme vpon the shoulder, for that they are mem∣bers of one body, but for that by order of nature the finger cannot consist, or bee of it selfe without the hand, nor the hand without the arme, nor the arme without the shoulder; Neuerthelesse many members of the same body also of a diuerse kinde can well consist one without the other, as the eye without the eare, the shoulder without the foot, the nose without the eie &c as likewise these two mem∣bers, whereof we now treate of the Christian com∣mon-wealth, not onely may, but also did actually,

as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth,e 1.5 in the A∣Apostles time consist one without the other.

And if this proposition of Card. Bellarmine be true, that the members of one body, if they bee of a diuerse kinde must depend one vpon the other, hee must acknow∣ledge, that in one kingdome the Musician must de∣pend vpon the Physician, or the Physician vpon the Musician, the Shooe-maker vpon the Taylor, or the Taylor vpon the Shooe-maker, the Lord Chamber∣laine vpon the Lord Treasurer, or the Lord Treasu∣rer vpon the Lord Chamberlaine, to omit infinite o¦ther such like trades and dignitie••, all which are mem¦bers of the same bodie or Kingdome, whereas it is too too manifest, that they are not subiect, or depend one vpon the other, but either immediately vpon the King, or vpon those Magistrates, whom the King shall appoint.

8. Secondly, whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth, that it is manifest enough, that the Pope is head of the Church in place of Christ, from whence it doth clearely follow, that a King must either be no member of this body,

or else he must be subiect to the Pope, M^r. Barclay re∣plyeth, that Card. Bellarmine doth cunningly equiuo∣cate in that word, [Church]. For the Pope indeed is head of the Church, that is of Ecclesiasticall things, or of Christians, as they are Christians, in so much that a King cannot be a member of the Church being ta∣ken in this manner, but hee must be sub••ect to the Pope. But if by the Church hee vnderstand both powers, ciuill and Ecclesiasticall, which are among Christians, both Lay-men and Cleargiemen, who are ioyned by one linke of faith, he i•• altogether de∣ceiued. For the Pope is not the head of ciuill things: and therfore in vaine doth Card. Bellarmine affirme, that Kingly power must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour, least that there be two heades in one bodie. For taking the Church in that sense, as it compre∣hendeth

ciuill and spirituall power, the Church hath Christ only for the head, and the Pope and Kings for chiefe members, who also in an other respect are ministeriall heades vnder Christ, the King of ciuill gouernment, and the Pope of spirituall. Besides, Card. Bellarmine doth now change his medium, as the Logicians call it: His argument, which he tooke vpon him to defend, was this: They are members of one body, therefore one dependeth vpon the other; now his argument proceedeth thus; Members doe depend vpon the head, the Pope is head of the Church, therefore Kings, who are members of the Church, doe depend vpon the Pope,

which are two distinct arguments, yet both of them fallacious, and insufficient to proue, that the temporall power it selfe, or which is all one, that tem∣porall Kings in temporall causes are subiect to the Pope, as you haue seene before.

9. Thirdly, whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth, that the assertion of D. Barclay comparing these two powers to two shoulders of the Church, which are connected to one head, who is Christ, doth appertaine to the heresie of this time, which affirmeth, that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church, and that D. Barclay doth of his owne ac∣cord grant thus much,

M. Iohn Barclay answereth, that Card. Bellarmine doth in this both slander D. Bar∣clay, and also maketh the Church and Pope odious to Princes. For what Protestant reading this may not with very good reason conclude, that Catho∣likes, according to Card. Bellarmines doctrin, when they say, that the Pope is the visible head of the Church, and that this is a point of Catholike-faith, doe vnderstand, that he is head and Gouernour not onely in Ecclesiasticall, but also in ciuill causes? what wise men of this world will not relate these say∣ings to Princes? and what Prince can without in∣dignation here them. Neither did D. Barclay euer make any doubt, but that the Pope Christs Vicar in

earth was head in Ecclesiasticall causes, neither did Catholike faith euer teach, that he was head in ciuill causes. Only Christ is head of Popes and Kings, the chiefe head I say of the Church. Whereupon S. Austin doth affirme,f 1.6 that an excommunicated person is out of the Church, and out of the body, whereof Christ is the head.

10. And therefore that similitude betweene the soule and body compounding one man, and the spiri∣tuall and ciuill power compounding one Church, or rather one Christian common wealth, or Christian world, is no fit similitude, and it is wrongfully ascri∣bed to S. Gregorie Nazianzene by Card. Bellarmine, as I shewed beforeg 1.7, for that the soule is as the forme, and the body as the matter, compounding one essen∣tiall thing, which is man, but the ciuill power is not as the matter, nor the spirituall as the forme compoun∣ding one essentiall body, which is the Church of Christ: but if we will haue them to compound one to∣tall body, which is the Church, taking the Church for the Christian world consisting both of the temporal and spirituall power, which are in Christians, whereof Christ or God, and not the Pope is the head, they are onely integrall, to vse the termes of Philosophers, and not essentiall parts, neither doe they compound one essentiall; but only one integrall compound, in which kinde of compound it is not necessary, that one part doth depend vpon the other, as hath beene now con∣uinced; but all must of necessitie depend vpon the head, although in an essentiall compound one part must of necessitie depend vpon the other, for that in such a compound one part must bee as the matter and the other as the forme, as I declared before.

11. Wherefore the spirituall and ciuill power in the Church, taking the Church for the Christian world containing in it both powers, or which is all one, for the company of all Christians, in whome are both

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

powers, or both subiections, are not like to the soule and body, which are essentiall parts of man: but they are as two shoulders, or two sides, which are on∣ly integrall parts of mans body: both which powers, although each of them in their kinde bee a visible head, the one of temporals, the other of spirituals, and in that respect doe formally make two totall bo∣dies, to wit, earthly kingdomes, whereof temporall Princes are the head, and the spirituall kingdome, or Church of Christ, whereof the Pope is the chiefe visi∣ble head, yet they are connected to one celestiall and inuisible head which is Christ, in which respect they make one totall body, whereof Christ onely and not the Pope is head, which may bee called the Christian world, consisting of earthly kingdomes, and the spi∣rituall kingdome, or Church of Christ.

12. Neither is it true, that these two powers be of so diuerse a kinde, that they cannot be well com∣pared to two shoulders, for both of them are pow∣ers, and in that respect of the same kinde, and as powers they are compared to two shoulders. And why may they not bee aptly compared to two shoulders, seeing that there is nothing more strong and more neere to the head in the Christian com∣mon-wealth? Neither is it materiall, that one is a more strong shoulder then the other; for in mans body the right arme is stronger then the left, and yet one is not more an arme then the other.

May not, I pray you, two pillars of a diuerse kinde, one of brasse, the other of marble, bee aptly compared one with the other, in that both of them are pillars. The temporall and the ciuill power, or Kings as Kings, and hauing temporall authoritie, and Bishops as Bishops, and hauing spirituall power, are as two vi∣sible pillars which doe sustaine the edifice of the Chri∣stian world, or common-wealth, the one in tempo∣ralls, the other in spirituals, they are as two shoulders,

which as in mans body are next vnder the head, and all the other inferiour members doe depend vpon them; so also they are next vnder God the head of both, and all other inferiour members of the Chri∣stian world doe depend vpon them; nay being com∣pared to the inferiour members of the Christian world, they are also as two visible and ministeriall heads; from whence, as from the head of mans bo∣dy, which is the roote, beginning, and foundation of all sense and motion in all the inferiour parts, all spirituall and temporall directions, Lawes, and pu∣nishments doe proceed.

13. And truely if D. Barclay must bee taxed of heresie, for comparing the temporall and spirituall power in the Church, or Christian world (for now the Church and Christian world which consisteth of both pow∣ers, is taken for all one) to two shoulders, and for affir∣ming, that Christ only is the chiefe celestial and invisible head of both these powers, and that Kings and Popes are two ministeriall heads thereof (although both of them are also principall in their owne kinde, and in the nature of a visible head) then must Hugo de S. Ʋictore be taxed of heresie, when he comparethi 1.8 these two powers to two sides, affirming, that Lay-men, who haue care of earthly things are the left side of this body, and Clergie men, who do minister spirituall things are the right, and that earthly power hath the King for the head, and the spirituall hath the Pope for head: Lo heere two sides (and consequently two shoulders) and two visi∣ble heads, wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head.

14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie, when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo, hee concludeth thusk 1.9: Behold two powers, and two heads of power: and beneath Likewise, saith he, neither Kingly power, which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the king∣dome,

is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ: and therefore the Pope is not head of the King, or Kingdome in temporalls. Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie, when he affirmethl 1.10, that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop, and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour. Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie, when hee affirmethm 1.11, That no man is more excellent then a King, nor any man is like to him in all created things, neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church. Then must S. Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie, when they affirmen 1.12, That whosoeuer hee bee, whether he be a Monke, a Priest, or an Apostle, he is according to S. Paul subiect to tempo∣rall Princes; as likewise Pope Pelagius the first, who affirmetho 1.13, That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings.

15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Lawp 1.14, related and approued by Cardinall Cusanusq 1.15, (which Glosse Card. Bellarminer 1.16, with small respect to antiquity, doth shamefully call a doting old woman, and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age) be taxed of heresie, affirming, That as the Pope is Fa∣ther of the Emperour in spirituall••; so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls. Then must Pope Inno∣cent the fourth bee taxed of heresie, when hee affir∣meths 1.17, That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls. Then must Hu∣go Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be tax∣ed of heresie, when he affirmetht 1.18, That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone, and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope. Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie, when hee affirmethu 1.19, That the Pope, and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordi∣nate Iudges, so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other: but they are as two Gouernours, who are the Mi∣nisters of one God deputed to diuerse offices, so that the

Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes, and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world, and the Pope ouer spiri∣tualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie. Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie, when they affirme,x 1.20 that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God, and inferiour to God alone; as like∣wise infinite other Catholike writers, who with He∣ctor Pintus doe affirme,y 1.21 that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour, although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests.

16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned, when they are not afraid by clamours, slan∣ders, and threatnings, rather then by force of reason, to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncer∣taine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catho∣like faith, and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures, or not so sound in their iudgements, they care not, although with pal∣pable sophismes, so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches, to maintaine what they haue once begun, and with no small scandall to Catholike religion, and great hurt to their owne soules, and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit, to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience, heresie, or errour, who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine, as being no point of the true, ancient, Catholike, and Apostolike faith, nor grounded vpon any one cer∣taine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures, ancient Fathers, de∣crees of Councells, practise of the primitiue Church, or any one Theologicall reason, wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely.

17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words

in their arguments and answers, not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words: as in this question, concerning the temporall power com∣pounding the Church, and being subiect therevnto, in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto, signifying temporall Princes formally, as they haue temporall power, and in an other they will take it materially, and in concreto, for temporall Princes, who indeed haue temporall power, but not as they haue temporall power; In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally, as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ, and consisteth only of spirituall power, and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men, or for the Christian world, as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power, and contay∣neth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ, and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world. So like∣wise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures, any one decree of Pope or Councell, or any one Theologicall reason, as vpon a firme, sure, and infallible ground of their new pretended faith, which if they would doe, this controuersie would be quickly at end, but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other, from the new Testament to the ould, from one Councell to an other, and from one Theologicall reason to an other, and when all their arguments be answered, then with clamours, slan∣ders, and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them, but not declaring why, or for what cause they are forbidden, or what erroneous do∣ctrine is contayned in them, they will make the mat∣ter cleare. But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile, neither will violence, but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings, and this their violent, shuffling, and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew, that they distrust their cause. And thus much concer∣ning the second argument.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7.
• b 1.2

  Cap. 2.
• c 1.3

  In Tract. contra B••rcl. cap. 14.
• d 1.4

  Cap. 14. §. 2^o.
• e 1.5

  Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6.
• f 1.6

  In serm. de remiss pec. & refertur 1. q. 1. can. Vt eui denter.
• g 1.7

  Cap. 3.
• i 1.8

  Lib. 2. de Sa∣••ram. p. 2. ca. 3.
• k 1.9

  Lib. 2. doctr. fid. art. 3. ca. 78
• l 1.10

  In lib. de veri∣tate praedest. & gratiae.
• m 1.11

  In Epist. ad Smyrnenses.
• n 1.12

  Ad Rom. 13.
• o 1.13

  Apud. Bini∣num tom. 2. Concil. pag. 633
• p 1.14

  In cap. Adri∣anus dist. 63.
• q 1.15

  Lib. 3. de Concord. Cath. cap. 3.
• r 1.16

  In Tract. cōtr. Barcl. ca. 13. 16
• s 1.17

  Super ca. No∣uerit de sent ex∣com.
• t 1.18

  De iure regni & Imperij cap. 9. in principio.
• u 1.19

  Lib. 2. de li∣bert. Christiana cap. 2.
• x 1.20

  Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme. Tibi soli pec∣caui.
• y 1.21

  In cap: 45. Ezech.