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 9.

Wherein the fift argument to proue the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall, taken from the authori∣tie of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the eight, is examined.

1. THe fift argument, which Car. Bellarmine bring∣etha 1.1 to proue the subiection of the tempo∣rall power among Christians to the spirituall, is taken from the authoritie of S. Bernard Lib. 4. de considerat and Pope Boniface the eight, in the Extrauagant, Ʋ∣nam Sanctam, who doth imitate, saith Card. Bellarmine, S. Bernards words. The words of S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius are these. Why dost thou againe attempt to v∣surpe, or vseb 1.2 the sword, which once thou wast comman∣ded to put vp into the scabbard? which neuerthelesse hee that denieth to be thine, doth seeme to me not sufficiently to haue considered the speech of our Lord saying, Returne thy sword into the scabbard. Therefore it is also thine, to be drawne forth perchance at thy beckec 1.3, or direction, although not with thy hand. Otherwise if also it doth in no maner appertaine to thee, when the Apostles said, Be∣hold to swords heere, our Lord had not answered, It is enough, but it is too much. Therefore both the spirituall, and the materiall sword doe belong to the Church, but the materiall is indeed to bee exercised, or drawne forth for the Church; but the spirituall also by the Church: the spi∣rituall with the hand of the Priest, the materiall with the hand of the Souldier, but indeed at the booke, or directi∣on, of the Priest, and at the command of the Emperour.

2. The pricipall words of Pope Boniface, besides those which hee doth imitate out of S Bernard are, That in the Catholicke, and Apostolike Church, whereof

Christ is the head, and S. Peter his Ʋicar, and in her pow∣er there be two swords, the spirituall, and the temporall, as we are instructed by those words of the Gospell, Behold heere; that is in the Church, two swords, &c. And that the sword must be vnder the sword, the temporall au∣thoritie subiect to the spirituall power. For the spirituall, the truth so witnessing, hath to instruct the earthly power, and to iudge if it be not good. So of the Church, and of the Ecclesiastical power, the prophesie of Ieremy is verified, be∣hold I haue appointed thee this day ouer nations and Kingdomes, and the rest which follow. Therefore if the earthly power goeth out of the way, shee shall be iudged by the spirituall power, but if the inferiour spirituall power goeth out of the way, shee shall be iudged by her superiour, but if the supreme goeth out of the way, shee can be iudged by God alone, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle, That the spiritual man iudgeth all things, and he is iudged by none. From all which Card. Bel∣larmine, who only relateth S. Bernards words, and af∣firmeth, that Pope Boniface doth imitate the same, doth conclude, that the meaning of S. Bernard, and Pope Bo∣niface was to affirme, that both the temporall and spiritual sword are in the power of the Pope, & that the Pope hath per se, and properly the spirituall sword, and because the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall, therefore the Pope may command, or forbid a King the vse of the tem∣porall sword, when the necessitie of the Church doth re∣quire it.

3. Thus you see what S. Bernard and Pope Boni∣face doe affirme, and also that Card. Bellarmine infer∣reth, and concludeth from their words. And although to this, which Card. Bellarmine inferreth from their words, there needeth no answere at all, for that I doe willingly grant all that, which he doth inferre, to wit, that the temporall sword is subiect in some cases to the commanding power of the Pope, and that the Pope may command, or forbid a King the vse of the tempo∣rall

sword, when the necessitie of the Church shall re∣quire it: seeing that the question betweene mee and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning the Popes comman∣ding power, and whether the Pope may command a King to vse the temporal sword in the necessitie of the Church, as I haue oftentimes in all my Bookes ex∣presly affirmed, but concerning the Popes coerciue power, and whether if a King will not vse the tempo∣rall sword at the Popes command, the Pope hath power to vse it himselfe, and may constraine a King not on∣ly with spirituall, but also with temporal compulsion, and punishment to fulfill his iust command; Neuer∣thelesse, because Card. Bellarmine hath now in his Schulckenius, taken some exceptions against the an∣swere, which I made in my Apologie to the authortie of S. Bernard, and consequently of Pope Boniface, who, as hee saith, doth imitate S. Bernards words, I thinke it not amisse to set downe my answere, and also his Reply, that so the Reader may cleerely perceiue, whether S. Bernard doth fauour, or disfauour Card. Bellarmines opinion concerning the Popes power to vse the temporall sword, in case a temporall King will not vse it at the Popes command, and whether D. Schul∣ckenius hath sufficiently confuted the answere, which I did make to the aforesaid authoritie of S. Bernard.

4 Thus therefore I answered in my Apologied 1.4,

that the words of S. Bernard doe only signifie, that both the materiall, and the spirituall sword doe be∣long in some sort to the Church, and are subiect vn∣to hir, not for that the ciuill power is per se, and of it owne nature subiect to the Ecclesiasticall, or that the Church, hath by the law of God any power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good, but because Christian Princes, being chil∣dren of the Church, are bound (and consequently the Church may command them, and by Ecclesia∣sticall Censures compell them therevnto) in de∣fence

of their holy mother the Church, to vse the temporall sword. Wherfore although the Church, when she hath present need, hath power to command, or forbid the vse of the materiall sword, or rather without any positiue, or constitutiue command of the Church Secular Princes are bound in that case to vse it, yet it doth not therefore follow, that the Church hir selfe hath dominion, right, or power to vse the corporall sword, seeing that to command the vse thereof, and to vse it hir selfe are farre different things, as I haue shewed beforec 1.5 yea and the very words of S. Bernard doe plainly shew as much. For otherwise if the Church, that is, as shee consi∣steth of Ecclesiasticall power, should haue the do∣minion of the materiall sword, and might vse it in order to spirituall good, it might by the law of God be drawne forth and vsed, not only for the Church but also by the Church, not onely with the hand of the souldier, but also of the Priest, which neuer∣thelesse S. Bernard doth affirme to be against our Sauiours command, who commanded S. Peter to put vp his sworde into the scabberd.

5 Wherefore I doe not mislike that very ex∣position (if it be rightly vnderstood) which Card: Bellarmine him selfe gathereth from those words of S. Bernard, who in this very place, as you haue seen, doth affirme, that S. Bernard, and Pope Boniface did by those words signifie, that the Pope hath per se, and properly the spirituall sword, (as a temporall Prince hath per se, and properly the materiall sword) and because the temporall power is subiect to the spiri∣tuall (not per se, but per accidens to command tem∣porall things in order to spirituall good, but not to punish temporally by way of coercion, but only spi∣ritually as I haue often declared) therefore the Pop-hath power to command or forbid a King the vse of the temporall sword, when the necessitie of the Church doth require it.

6 Therefore the temporall sword according to the opinion of S. Bernard doth belong to the Pope, and is called his sword, for that, when the ne∣cessitie of the Church doth require, it is to bee drawne forth for the Church, but not by the Church, with the hand of the souldier, but not of the Priest, at the becke indeede, or direction, of the Priest, but at the command of the Emperour. By which last words S. Bernard doth signifie, that the Emperour in v∣sing the temporall sword for the necessitie of the Church is indeed to bee directed by the Pope (for that the Pope ought to declare, when the Church hath necessitie, but the vse it selfe of the sword doth immediately depend vpon the Emperors command, to whose command the souldiers in vsing the tempo∣rall sword are immediately subiect.

7 But what if the Emperour shall refuse to vse the temporall sword at the Popes becke, or direction? Hath therefore the Pope, according to S. Bernards opinion, power to draw it forth himselfe, or can the Emperour by the Popes authoritie be depriued of the dominion thereof? No truly. But because he doth not keepe that promise, which he hath giuen to the Church, and contrarie to the law of God hee doth not relieue the necessities of the Church, the Church hath power to punish him with Ecclesiasti∣call and spirituall punishments, as I haue often said. Wherefore these words of S. Bernard doe nothing fauour the Popes temporall power, or his power to vse the temporall sword, but rather do directly con∣contradict it. And this very answer hath Ioannes Parisiensis* 1.6 in expresse words &c.

Thus I answe∣red in my Apologie.

8 Now you shall see, how well D. Schulckenius replyeth to this my answer. I answer, saith hef 1.7, that which my Aduersarie Widdrington first doth say, that both the swords doe belong to the Church, hee saith well, but

that which hee addeth, that both the swords are subiect to the Church, he saith not well. For the spirituall sword to bee subiect to the Church, doth signifie no other thing, then that the Popes power is subiect to the Church, which is manifestly false, whereas contrariwise it is to bee said, that the Church is subiect to the spirituall sword, or to the power of the Pope, vnlesse perchance Widdrington be of opinion, that the Sheepheard is subiect to his sheepe, and not the sheepe to the Sheepheard.

9 Marke now, good Reader, the cunning, not to say, fraudulent proceeding of this man. Hitherto he hath, as you haue seene, taken the Church, the Chri∣stian common-wealth, the mysticall bodie, or spiri∣tuall kingdom of Christ to be all one, and to be one totall bodie, consisting both of temporall, and spiri∣tuall power, and compareth hir to a man compoun∣ded of bodie and soule; And may it not, I pray you, be rightly said, that all the powers both of bodie and soule are subiect to man? and why then may it not also be rightly said, that the spirituall sword or power is subiect to the Church? But now forsooth this Do∣ctor, that hee might take an occasion to charge me with a manifest falshood, will not take the Church, as hee tooke it before for the whole mysticall bodie of Christ, which totall bodie includeth both the Pope, and all other inferiour members thereof, in which sense I did take the Church, when I affirmed, that not onely the spirituall, but also the temporall sword is in some sort subiect to the Church, but hee will take the Church for one part onely of this mysticall bo∣die, to wit, for all the members of the Church be∣sides the Pope, in which sense the Church is indeed sometimes taken, as when the Church is compared with the Pope, and it is said, that the Pope is head of the Church; but when the Church is compared with Christ, and is said to be the mysticall bodie and spiri∣tuall kingdome of Christ, the Church doth include

both the Pope, and all other inferiour members there∣of, who iointly make one totall bodie, whereof Christ is the head. And the very like is seene in the bodie of man; for when the bodie is compared with the head, the bodie doth not include the head, but when the bodie is compared with the soule, & said to be sub∣iect to the soule, & that of the bodie & soule is made one man, then the bodie doth also include the head.

10. Wherefore taking the Church, as it doth signi∣fie the whole mysticall body of Christ, in which sense both Card. Bellarmine himselfe, and also S. Bernard in this very place doe take it, when they affirme, that the materiall sword is to be drawne foorth for the Church, and the spirituall by the Church, it is truly said, that the spi∣rituall sword is subiect to the Church: Neither doth this signifie, that the Popes spirituall power, is subiect to the Church, for now the Church is taken, as it exclu∣deth the Pope, but rather that all spirituall power, which is in any member of the Church, is subiect to the whole body of the Church, and consequently to the Pope, in whom all the power of the Church according to Cardinall Bellarmines opinion, doth reside. And would not D. Schulckenius thinke, that I did cauill, if I should say of him, as hee saith of mee, that he spake not rightly, when in this very place hee affirmeth, that Christ gaue to the Church both the swords. For the spirituall sword to be giuen to the Church doth signifie no other thing, to vse his owne words, then that the Popes power was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to the Church, which in Card. Bellarmines opinion is not on∣ly manifestly false, but also an erroneous doctrine.

11. I omit now, that the ancient Doctours of Paris, (who hould, that the whole body of the Church ta∣ken collectiue, and not including the Pope, which a ge∣nerall Councell lawfully assembled doth represent, is su∣periour to the Pope) would not thinke to speake any falshood at all, if they should say, that Christ gaue all

the power, which the Pope hath, also to the Church, and that the Popes power is subiect to the Church, and that it doth not therefore follow, that the Pastour is subiect to the sheepe, or the superiour to the inferiour, but rather contrariwise. But in very truth this was not my meaning, when I affirmed, that both swords are in some sort subiect to the Church, for by the name of Church I vnderstood also the Pope, as I declared before

12. Secondly, when Widdrington affirmeth, saith D. Schulckenius, that the ciuill power is not per se subiect to the Ecclesiasticall, he doth corrupt the text of S. Bernard, and of Pope Boniface the eight. For when S. Bernard saith, that the materiall sword is the Popes, and is to bee drawne forth at his becke, and direction, he clearely con∣fesseth, that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword, which Pope Boniface doth declare more plainely, when he saith, that the sword must be vnder the sword, and temporall authoritie subiect to spirituall power.

13. But how shamefully D. Schulckenius accuseth me of corrupting the text of S. Bernard, and Pope Bo∣niface, let the Reader iudge; seeing that I neither add, nor diminish, nor alter any one word of their text, but doe say the very same words which they doe say. For S. Bernard doth say, that the materiall sword is the Popes, and doth belong to the Pope, but with this limi∣tation, in some sort, to bee drawne foorth for the Church, but not by the Church, with the hand of the Souldier, not of the Priest, at the becke, or direction, of the Priest, but at the command of the Emperour: and I also say the very same. But S. Bernard doth not say, that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword per se, but only in some sort, to be drawne forth for the Church, not by the Church &c. From which words it is plainely gather∣ed, that the materiall sword, or temporall power is, according to S. Bernard, subiect to the spirituall, not per se, but per accidons, in spiritualls, not in temporalls, to be commanded in some case by the Priest, as he is a

Priest, but not to be drawne forth, or vsed by a Priest as he is a Priest, but as he is a temporall Prince, or a publike, or priuate souldier. In like manner I say with Pope Boniface, that the sword is vnder the sword, and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall, but Pope Boni∣face doth not say, that the sword is per se vnder the sword, and the temporall power is per se subiect to spi∣rituall authoritie, and therefore, seeing that hee doth imitate S. Bernards words, as Card. Bellarmine here affirmeth, he is to be vnderstood in that sense, as S. Bernard vnderstood them, to wit, that the sword is vn∣der the sword, in some sort, and the temporall power subiect to the spirituall in some sort, to be drawne foorth, or vsed for the Church, but not by the Church &c. as I now declared.

14. Thirdly, when Widdrington, affirmeth, saith D. Schulckenius, that the Church hath not by the law of God power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spiri∣tuall good, he speaketh too ambiguously. For the law of God doth not command Ecclesiasticall men to vse with their own hand the materiall sword, neither doth it so forbid them, but that his lawfull for them in some cases to vse it also with their owne hand: But neuerthelesse according to S. Bernards opinion Christ gaue both the swordes to the Church, and by this he gaue her power to vse the materiall sword in that manner, as doth beseem her, to wit, by the ser∣uice, or hands of others, in directing Secular Princes, that they draw it forth, or put it in the scabard, as it is expedient to the honour of God, and the saluation of Christian people.

15. But my words are very plaine, and no whit ambiguous I say, that the Church, taking the Church, not materially, for all the members of the Church, but for Churchmen, formally as they are Churchmen, or which is all one, for the Church, as it consisteth of Ec∣clesiasticall power, are according to S. Bernards doc∣trine commanded not to draw forth, or vse with their owne hands the materiall sword euen in order to spi∣rituall

good. For S. Bernards words are plaine, why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword, which thou wast once, not only counselled, but cōmanded to put vp into the scabard &c. But if the Pope becom a temporall Prince or a Priest do lawfully becom a Soldier, to fight either in his own defence, or in the defence of others, which Christ did not forbid, although the Church in some cases hath forbidden it, neither I, nor S. Bernard doe denie, that the Pope, as he is a temporall Prince, or a Priest, as he is a lawfull Souldier, hath power to vse with their owne hands the materiall sword. Neither did S. Bernard euer grant, that the Pope, as he is Pope, or a Priest as he is a Priest, or, which is all one, by his spirituall, or Priestly authority, hath power to draw foorth, or to vse with his owne hands the materiall sword, although the Pope by his spirituall power may direct and command a temporall Prince to draw it foorth, and vse it, when the necessitie of the Church shall require, which onely D. Schulckenius in this pa∣ragraph doth affirme.

16. Fourthly, that is false, saith D. Schulckenius,g 1.8 which Widdrington affirmeth, that the materiall sword in that onely sense doth belong to the Church, because Se∣cular Princes being children of the Church are bound to fight in defence of the Church their mother. For S. Ber∣nard doth grant much more to the Ecclesiasticall Prince, when he saith, Therefore it is also thine, to wit, the ma∣teriall sword. And beneath, Therefore both the spiri∣tuall and the materiall sword are the Churches, but the materiall sword is to bee drawen foorth for the Church, and the spirituall also by the Church, the spirituall with the hand of the Priest, the materiall with the hand of the Souldier, but truly at the becke, or direction of the Priest, and at the command of the Emperour. Where S. Bernard doth not only signifie, that Souldiers or Princes are bound to draw foorth the sword for the Church, but also at the becke, or direction of the

Priest, that is, with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power, as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordina∣tion to the command of the Emperour.

17. But anie man who readeth ouer but sleightly my answer in that place, will easily perceiue, that this is a meere cauill, and also a plaine vntruth; for that in expresse words I doe affirme, that Secular Princes and Souldiers are, according to S. Bernard, to draw foorth, and vse the materiall sword for the necessity of the Church, at the becke, counsell, direction, yea, and command of the Priest, which is as much, as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth S. Bernard to say; al∣though S. Bernard did expressely distinguish betwixt becke and command, at the becke, saith he, of the Priest, but at the command of the Emperour; whereby it is manifest, that S. Bernard did not account becke and command to be all one, and consequently, hee did not approoue the same subordination to be betwixt Secu∣lar Princes, and the Priest in vsing the materiall sword, as is betwixt Souldiers, and the Emperour. For albeit S. Bernard by the name of becke did not onely vnder∣stand aduise and counsell, which Christian Princes in all their weightie affaires concerning the Law of God and Christian Religion ought to demand of lear∣ned Priests, and who are skilfull in the Law of God, and Christian Religion, but also a command to fight, and vse the materiall sword in defence of the Church and Christian Religion, & to the obseruing of which command, Christian Princes may, as also I sayd, by Ecclesiasticall censures bee compelled, yet this com∣mand being a declaratiue command, which doth onely declare a former command of God, and nature, and doth not make a new bond, but onely declare and sig∣nifie a former obligation, may rather be called a becke∣ning, and signifying, that Christian Princes are by the Law of God bound in that case to draw foorth, fight, and vse the materiall sword, then a true, proper, and

constitutiue command, which doth not onely signifie. but also induce a new bond or obligation.

18. And in this sense not onely Ioannes Parisiensis, whom I cited before,h 1.9 doth vnderstand those words of S. Bernard (at the becke indeede of the Priest) but also our learned Countri-man Alexander of Hales, There is, saith he,i 1.10 an authority to command, and an au∣thority to beckon; in the authority to command it doth fol∣low, he doth that thing by whose authority it is done, but in the authority to beckon this doth not follow. The au∣thoritie to command wicked men to be slaine is in the Empe∣rour, but the authoritie to beckon is in the Pope and Priests. And this beckoning as hath beene sayd, is a preaching of the Law of God, and an exhorting, that Princes will obey the Law of God, Wherupon S. Bernard sheweth how both the materiall and spirituall sword are the Churches, and doe belong to the Church, not for as much as concerneth vse or command, but for as much as concerneth beckoning: whereupon he speaketh in this manner to Eugenius, hee that denieth the materiall sword to be thine, seemeth to me not to regard sufficiently the word of our Lord saying, Returne thy sword into thy scabard, and so foorth as it followeth in S. Bernard.

19. Wherefore, according to S. Bernard, the ma∣teriall sword is subiect to the spirituall, not absolute∣ly, but in some sort to be beckoned, but not to bee vsed or commanded, as beckoning is distinguished from command, by the Priest, as he is a Priest. And there∣fore that Glosse, which D. Schulckenius maketh of those words [at the becke indeede of the Priest] that is, saith he, with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power, as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperor, is verie vntrue, & expresly against S. Bernards words; both because the Empe∣rour hath power to command the souldier to vse the materiall sword, but the Priest according to S. Bernard hath onely power to beckon, but not to command the

vse thereof, and also because if the Souldier will not vse the materiall sword at the Emperours command; the Emperour, as Emperour, may vse it himselfe, and with his owne hand, which the Priest, as Priest, or, which is all one, the Ecclesiasticall power, according to S. Bernard, cannot doe; and moreouer because the Emperour, as Emperour, may compell the souldier with temporall punishments to vse the materiall sword, and not onely depriue him of his power and right to vse the same; but also of his temporall life, which the Priest, as Priest, or the Ecclesiastical power, cannot doe.

20. And therefore who would not maruaile to see D. Schulckenius so boldly, and in such publike writings to affirme, That the question is not, whether the spirituall Prince hath dominion, right, or power to vse the materiall sword: but onely, whether the sword be vn∣der the sword, and whether the temporall power bee sub∣iect to the spirituall. And whereas Widdrington, saith he, in this place confesseth, that the Church hath power to command, or forbid in time of necessitie the vse of the materiall sword, from thence we doe gather that the sword is vnder the sword, and the temporall power is subiect to the command, and prohibition of the spirituall power, which onely Card. Bellarmine in that his second argu∣ment did intend. Wherefore Widdrington doth seeme to decline of set purpose the principall question. For, as wee haue often said, the question is not concerning the dominion, or vse of the materiall sword, but concerning the power to direct it, and concerning the subiection of the materiall sword to the spirituall. But these in the option of S. Ber∣nard are most manifest. And for as much as appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword, wee assent altogether to S. Bernard, that it doth not beseeme Ecclesiasticall men to vse the materiall sword, but onely the spirituall, and thus much onely those words of our Sauiour doe signifie, Put vp thy sword into thy scabbard, and those of S. Bernard,

Why doest thou againe attempt to vse the sword, which once thou wast commanded to put into the scabbard? For heere it is not meant of the Law of God, by which Ecclesiasticall men are absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword; seeing that it is manifest, that in some cases, and especially in defence of themselues, and of their Countrey: this is lawfull, but of the command of God, by which Cleargie men are instructed, and taught, that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall, but with the spi∣rituall sword. Thus D. Schulckenius.

21. But it is strange to see, how farre affection will carry the pens of learned men; In very truth I should neuer haue imagined, that D. Schulckenius, or any o∣ther learned man, who hath read my Apologie, would euer haue beene so bold, as to affirme, That the questi∣on betwixt me, and Card. Bellarmine is not, whether the Pope hath power to vse the materiall sword, but onely whether the sword be vnder the sword, and the temporall power subiect to the command, and prohibition of the spi∣spirituall power, and that this only was intended by Card. Bellarmine in his second argument. For first concerning the question betwixt mee, and Card. Bellarmine it is euident, that I haue oftentimes declared in my Apo∣logie, and D. Schulckenius also setteth downe my words, that the true state of the question betwixt mee and Card. Bellarmine, is not concerning the Popes power to command, but to dispose of temporalls, nor whether the sword be in any manner whatsoeuer vn∣der the sword, or the temporal power in any sort subiect to the spirituall, but in what manner the sword is vnder the sword, and after what sort the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall. For I haue often granted, that the spirituall power, or the Pope as Pope, may command temporalls, and the vse of the materiall sword, and punish disobedient Princes with Ecclesia∣call censures: but what, which I vtterly denied, was, that the spirituall power, or the Pope as Pope may dis∣pose

of temporalls, vse the materiall sword, or punish disobedient Princes by taking away their liues, king∣domes, or goods.

22. Secondly, it is also manifest, that Card. Bellar∣mine in his second argument did not onely intend to proue, that the temporal power is subiect to the com∣mand, and prohibition of the spirituall power, as D. Schulckenius affirmeth, but also, that the spirituall power may vse, and dispose of temporalls, depose temporal Princes, and institute others, and constraine or punish with temporall punishments. For marke, I pray you, his second argument: In the first part thereof he argueth thus. The power to vse and dispose of temporalls (and consequently of the materiall sword which is a temporall thing) is necessary to the spirituall end, because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment fauour Heretickes, and overthrow Religion, therefore the Church hath also, this power. And yet D. Schulckenius doth not blush to affirme, that Card. Bellarmine in his second argument did onely intend to proue, that the temporall power is subiect to the command, and prohibition of the spirituall power. And in the second part of his argument hee concludeth thus: Therefore much more the spirituall common-wealth, hath power to command the temporall common-wealth, which is subiect vnto her, and to con∣straine her to change her gouernment, and to depose Princes, and to institute others, when she can not otherwise defend her spirituall good. And in this manner are to bee vnderstood the words of S. Bernard, and Pope Boni∣face, &c. Thus Card. Bellarmine. So that according to Card. Bellarmine, S. Bernards words doe proue, that the Pope hath power not onely to command the materiall sword, but also to vse it, vnlesse the materiall sword is not to be comprehended vnder the name of temporalls. And therefore not I, but D. Schulckenius doth of set purpose decline the difficultie, and also

vntruly affirmeth, that Card: Bellarmine did not in∣tend to proue in his second argument, that the Pope hath power to vse the materiall sword, but onely that the materiall sword is subiect to the command and prohibition of the spirituall power, seeing that Card: Bellarmines second argument doth most clearely shew the contrarie.

23 But marke now how clearely D. Schulckenius doth either contradict S. Bernards words and him selfe, or else fowly equiuocate, and confirme the an∣swer which I gaue to the authoritie of S. Bernard. I affirmed, that S. Bernards words are so to be vnder∣stood, that it is lawfull for Ecclesiasticall men, as they are Ecclesiasticall men, to command in some cases the vse of the materiall sword, but that to vse the ma∣teriall sword themselues, as they are Ecclesiasticall men, they are forbidden by the expresse command of Christ. Now D. Schulckenius affirmethk 1.11, that for as much at appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword, he assenteth altogether to S. Bernard, that it doth not be∣seeme Ecclesiasticall men to vse the materiall sword, but onely the spirituall; and thus much onely those words of our Sauiour doe signifie, Returne thy sword into the scabbard; and those of S. Bernard, why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword, which once thou wast commanded to put into the scabard? For here it is not meant of the law of God, by which Ecclesiasticall men are absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword, seeing that it is manifest, that in some cases, and especially in defence of themselues and of their countrey, this is law∣full, but of the command of God, by which Cleargie men are instructed, and taught, that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall, but with the spirituall sword. Thus D. Schulckenius.

24 But if D. Schulckenius meane that Ecclesiasti∣call men are onely for decencie, which implyeth no command, not to vse the materiall sword, he plainly

contradicteth S. Bernard, to whom neuerthelesse hee affirmeth altogether to assent, who expressely auer∣reth, that the Pope in S. Peter was not only counsailed, but commanded not to vse the materiall sword. And therefore S. Bernards words can not otherwise be vn∣derstood, but that Ecclesiasticall men, as they are Ecclesiasticall men, and the Pope, as Pope, are by the command of Christ absolutely forbidden to vse the materiall sword; for S. Bernard did not intend to affirme, that Ecclesiasticall men, if they become temporall Princes, or being considered, as they are priuate men, or citizens, and parts, or members of the temporall common-wealth, are by the command of Christ forbidden to vse the materiall sword, and to fight in defence of their owne persons, or of their Countrey.

25 Wherefore those last words of D. Schulckenius, to wit, that S. Bernards saying is to be vnderstood of the command of God, by which Cleargie men are instructed, and taught, that their vocation is not to fight with the materiall, but with the spirituall sword, are somewhat equivocall. For if D. Schulckenius doe onely vnder∣stand of such an instruction, which implyeth no com∣mand of Christ, but onely a certaine decencie, coun∣sell, and aduise, for that it doth not beseeme the per∣fection of those men, who haue a spirituall vocation, to fight with the materiall sword, hee plainly contra∣dicteth himselfe, and also S. Bernard himselfe, for that hee acknowledgeth a command of God, whereby Cleargie men are instructed &c. but this instruction supposeth no command of God; S. Bernard also he contradicteth, who expressely speaketh of a command, whereby Ecclesiasticall men are by the law of Christ, and not only of the Church forbidden to vse the ma∣teriall sword, which command of Christ, as I said be∣fore, can bee no other, then that Ecclesiasticall men can not, as they are Ecclesiasticall men, vse the mate∣riall

sword; for that although the Ecclesiasticall power doth according to S. Bernard and the truth, extend to the beckoning, or declaratiue commanding of the materiall sword in some cases, yet it doth not extend to the vsing thereof, but this power to vse the materiall sword doth proceed from the law of nature, or the ciuill power, who doe giue authoritie to euery man, whether he be a Clerke, or Laike in case at least wise of necessitie, to vse the materiall sword in de∣fence of his owne person, or of his countrey. And if D. Schulckenius only intend to signifie thus much by those last words of his, which in very deede can not be otherwise vnderstood, vnlesse wee will make them repugnant to themselues, hee doth fauour, not contradict, confirme and not impugne my answer.

26 Fiftly, obserue, good Reader, how cunningly D. Schulckenius would shift off the last, and principall Answer, which I made to the authoritie of S. Bernard. I granted, as you haue seene before, that the Pope, as Pope, hath, according to S. Bernard, power to beckon, or command the Emperour to vse the materiall sword, when the necessitie of the Church shall require and to punish him with Ecclesiasticall punishments, if he shall refuse to obey his iust command, or becke, and I affirmed, that this is the most, that can be gathe∣red from those words of S. Bernard. But if the Emperour should refuse to vse the materiall sword at the Popes command, or becke, I affirmed, that it could not be inferred from that authoritie of S. Bernard, that the Pope, as Pope, could vse it himselfe, or depriue the Emperour of his temporall dominion, or power to vse the materiall sword, for this were to vse, and to dis∣pose of temporalls, and implyeth a power to vse, and draw forth the materiall sword it selfe, which S. Ber∣nard expressely denyeth to the Pope: and that there∣fore S. Bernards authoritie doth nothing fauour, but clearely contradict the Popes power, I doe not say, to

command temporalls, but to dispose of temporalls, and to vse temporalls, as Ioannes Parisiensis, and Alexander of Hales,l 1.12 did before affirme. Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius replyethm 1.13 in this manner.

27. Thou didst runne well, who hath hindered thee so soone not to obey the truth? For now thou dost not follow S. Bernard, but William Barclay, as thy Master. If that the Emperour shall refuse to vse the sword at the becke of the Pope in great necessitie of the Church, it is not indeed fit∣ting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword, but hee hath power to constraine the Emperour, first with Ecclesiasticall punishments, and afterwards also by depriuing him of the sword, as in the like case the Councell of Lateran often cited doth teach, which one Councell is to be preferred before all the Barclaies, or Iohns of Paris, all men doe thinke, who are not mad.

28. Is not this thinke you a trim answere? The question betwixt me, and Card. Bellarmine in this place was not concerning the Councell of Lateran, wher∣of I will treat beneath,* 1.14 and plainely shew, that, not∣withstanding all the clamours of my Aduersaries, the said Councell hath neither defined, or supposed for cer∣taine, nay or supposed at all, that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes, as D. Schulckenius doth here collect from thence, but the question was onely concerning the authoritie of S. Bernard. And I prooued clearely out of S. Bernards wordes, that al∣though the Pope, as Pope hath power to command, or forbid in some cases the vse of the materiall sworde, yet that he hath power, as he is Pope, to vse it himselfe, or to depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof, which implyeth a power to vse it himselfe, this I said could not be proued, but rather the contrarie out of those words of S. Bernard, who doth not only say, that it is not fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword, as D. Schulckenius would mince his words, but that it is for∣bidden the Pope to draw foorth, or vse the materiall

sword. Now D. Schulckenius passeth ouer S. Bernard, and flyeth to the Councell of Lateran to proue, that if the Emperour refuse at the Popes command to vse the materiall sword, he may by the Popes authoritie bee depriued of the vse thereof, whereas the present que∣stion was only concerning the opinion of S. Bernard, and not what was the doctrine of the Councell of La∣teran in this point, whose authoritie I doe asmuch re∣spect either as Card. Bellarmine, or any other Catho∣like is bound to doe. But it is an easie matter to wrest the words of the Councell of Lateran, or any other to their purpose, contrary to the true meaning of the Councell, and then to crie out ô the Councell of Lateran, which is to be preferred before all Barclaies, and Wid∣dringtons &c. whereas we doe asmuch respect the autho∣ritie of the Councell of Lateran, or any other, as they do, although we doe not so much respect their ouer wrest∣ed collections, which they to serue their owne turnes, doe gather from any Councel, or text of holy Scripture, contrarie to the plaine, proper, and true sense and mea∣ning of the words. But to such shiftings, and win∣dings euen learned men are sometimes brought, when they will make their vncertaine opinions, and priuate expositions of holy Scriptures, or Councells to be infal∣lible grounds of the Catholike faith.

29. Lastly but the foundation, saith D. Schulckenius, of Widdringtons errour is, for that he thinketh, that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour by reason of the faith, and free promise, which the Emperour gaue, and made to the Pope, according to the similitude, which a little before he put concerning one, who promised an other to spend his life, and all his goods in defence of him. But this foundation is false, because the authoritie of the Pope ouer Christian Princes doth not proceed from their onely promise, or faith, which they haue giuen, but from the law of God, by which law the Pope is made by Christ the Pa∣stour of all his stocke, the chiefe of all his familie, the head.

of all his body, and the Rectour of all his Church, Where∣fore it is no maruaile, if from false foundation he conclude a falshood to wit, that S. Bernards words do not onely, not fauour the Popes temporal power, but are flat contrarie to it. What I beseech you, could be spoken more cleerely for the Popes temporall power, then that which S. Bernard said, that the temporall sword is the Popes, and that both swords are the Churches, and that the temporall sword ought to be drawne foorth at the Popes becke? And as for Ioannes Parisiensis there is no great reckoning to be made of him whatsoeuer he saith, both for that he is re∣pugnant to the Councell of Lateran, and many others, and also that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant, Vas electionis, and lastly, for that either he denieth only the Popes direct power in tem∣poralls, or else he doth plainly contradict himselfe.

30. But truely it is strange, that learned men, and who pretend to maintaine nothing but truth, dare ad∣uenture to auouch so bouldly, and in such publike writings so manifest vntruths, and which they them∣selues in their consciences can not but see to be plain, and palpable vntruths. I very often, and that of set purpose did affirme in my Apologie, and D. Schulcke∣nius doth also set downe my words, that the Pope, as Pope, hath power to command temporall Princes in tempo∣rals in order to spirituall good, and yet this man to make his Reader beleeue, that I doe teach flat heresie, blush∣eth not to affirme in an other place,n 1.15 that I deny, that the Pope, as Pope, hath power to commaund temporall Princes in temporalls in order to spirituall good. So like∣wise, I did oftentimes in my Apologie affirme,o 1.16 and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words, that the Pope, as Pope hath power by the law of God, and for that he is appointed by Christ to be the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Catholike Church, to constraine and pu∣nish all disobedient Christians both Princes and peo∣ple, with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments;

and yet now this man to perswade his Reader, that I teach heere a manifest errour, is not ashamed to af∣firme, that I am of opinion, that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour in regard onely of the free pro∣mise, which the Emperour hath made to the Pope. And therefore D. Schulckenius neither dealeth truely nor sincerely, and both deludeth his Reader, and also wrongeth mee, in affirming, that to bee my doctrine, which I expressely impugne, and that to be the foun∣dation of my opinion (which hee is pleased to call an errour) which I in expresse words, and that often∣times haue denied.

21. For as I doe willingly grant, that although a temporall Prince hath power to command, and with temporall punishments to compell, if neede require, his temporall subiects to make, and sweare an expresse promise of that true faith, loyaltie and temporall al∣legeance, which by the Law of God and nature they doe owe to their lawfull Prince, yet I doe not affirme, that a temporalll Prince hath power to constraine his rebellious subiects by vertue onely of the promise, which they haue made, but by vertue of his supreme temporall power which hee hath, as hee is a supreme temporall Prince by the Law of God and nature; So also I do willingly grant, that although the Pope hath power to command, and with spirituall punishments to compell, if neede require, all Christian Princes and people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith, loyalty and spirituall allegeance, which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ, they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ, and the Empe∣rour at his coronation taketh such an oath, neuerthe∣lesse I doe not affirme, that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes, and peo∣ple by vertue onely of the promise, which they haue

made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience, but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power, which he hath by the Law of God, and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus.

32. True it is, that the Reader might the better vn∣derstand, that to command one to vse a temporall thing, and to vse it himselfe, to command one to di∣spose of temporals, and to dispose of them himselfe, are very different things, and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other, I brought a familiar example of one, who either, by promise, or by some other obligation (and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise, and cleane omitteth the other obligation) is bound to dispose, and giue his goods, or life at an∣thers command, who notwithstanding this promise, or other obligation, doth still keepe the property, do∣minion and right ouer his goods and life, in such sort, that the other cannot be vertue of his comman∣ding power, which he hath ouer him and them, take them away and dispose of them without his consent, but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command, according as by vertue either of his pro∣mise, or of some other obligation he is bound to doe, the other may complaine to the Magistrate, that hee will punish him for his offence, or cause him to per∣forme his promise, so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend. From which I conclu∣ded, that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword, and to haue a power to vse it, or to depriue of the vse thereof, are two diffe∣rent things, neither doth one necessarily follow from the other, although the Pope, as Pope, hath according to S. Bernard, power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword, yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command, the Pope, as Pope, can vse it himselfe, or depriue the Emperour of the vse

thereof, which implieth a power to vse the same, but onely, that the Pope, being a spirituall Prince or Ps∣tour, may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments, which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince & Pas∣tor of the spirituall kingdome & Church of Christ.

33. Thus therefore you haue seen, that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour, but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword, neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same, then he hath done. For although it be cleere, that the temporall sword is, according to S. Bernard, the Popes in some sort, and doth belong to the Church in some sort (which words [in some sort] D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth) and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke, direction or declaratiue command of the Pope, yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes, and belongeth to the Pope in some sort, that it is to be vsed for the Church, but not by the Church, with the hand of the Souldier, and not of the Priest, at the becke indeede of the Pope, but at the command of the Em∣perour, and that our Sauiour commanded, and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard, do plainly shew, that, according to S. Bernard, the Pope as Pope, cannot vse the temporal sword, nor constrain a temporall Prince by, vsing temporall punishments, which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword.

34. And for D. Barclay, and Iohn of Paris (to omit our learned Country-man, Alexander of Hales, whose words I related before)p 1.17 who doe giue the very same answere, which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard, of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine, heere doth make very small recko∣ning, yet I do plainly confesse, that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword, and to dispose of all temporals in order to spi∣rituall good, I doe more regard their authoritie, then

I doe Card. Bellarmines, speaking with all dutifull re∣spect, for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly, more cleerely, and more sin∣cerely then he hath done. Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane, but onely to the particular exposition, which som few especially of late yeeres (who haue scraped together all the autho∣rities of Fathers, Councells, Scriptures, facts, and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie) haue wrested out the words of the said Councel, contrarie to the plaine sense of the words, and the common vnderstan∣ding of all ancient Diuines, who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane, although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law. But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines, and those also, who, not perceiuing their owne errour, doe accuse others of the same, to alleadge, in confirmation of their opinions, the holy Scriptures, and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning, and then to cry out against their brethren, who mislike their opinions, that they haue the holy Sriptures, and sacred Councels on their side, and that therefore their doctrine is of faith, and the contrary hereticall, and that their Aduersaries doe oppose them∣selues against the holy Scriptures, and decrees of the Catholike Church, whereas wee doe regard, with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures, sacred Councels, and decrees of the Catholik Church (the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense, & not in the letter, or in the expositiō of any priuate Ca∣tholike Doctour, which exposition others doe contra∣dict) and do oppose our selues only against their vn∣certaine opinions, and expositions of holy Scrip∣tures, or sacred Councells, grounded vpon their pri∣uate spirit and vnderstanding, contrary to the true,

proper, and plaine meaning of the words.

35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis, or ra∣ther another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time, and surnamed de Poliaco, as I said beforeq 1.18, was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory, at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors, which he maintained cōcerning confession, and absolution (of whose authoritie ne∣uerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies; notwithstanding those his errours, maketh some rekoning, seeing he citeth him as a Clas∣sicall Doctour in fauour of his opinionr 1.19) yet this ra∣ther confirmeth mee in my opinion. For if his doc∣trine, which denieth that the Pope, as Pope, hath pow∣er to depriue iuridically, and by way of sentence, temporall Princes of their dominions, and to vse the temporall sword, had beene thought in those daies to haue beene hereticall, or erronious, as now Card. Bel∣larmine, and some few other Iesuites will needes haue it to be, it is like, that he should also haue beene compelled to recall that doctrine, and that those lear∣ned Authors, who write of heresies, as Alphonsus de Castro, Prateolus Genebrard, D. Sanders, and others would for the same haue taxed him, and Marsilius of Padua (as also Albericus, and those many Schoole∣men and Doctours, related by Trithemius and Al∣maine, who did defend the same doctrine) with some note of heresie, or errour, which seeing they haue not done, it is a manifest signe, that they did not account that doctrine for hereticall, or erronious, & that the de∣cree of the Councel of Lateran, which was long before any of these mens daies, and which was also so pub∣like and registred in the corps of the Canon Law, was not in those times vnderstood in that sense, as Card. Bellarmine now of late (for before in his con∣trouersies he made small reckoning of that authority, for that he cleane omitteth that decree: yet bringing many particular facts of Popes, yea & of Pope Innocēt

the third, in whose time, and by whose authoritie that Councell was held) and some few others without suf∣ficient proofe, as I will shew beneaths 1.20, will needes haue that decree to be vnderstood.

36. Neither is that true, which D. Schulckenius affirmeth, that Ioannes Parisiensis (in acknowledging. That when the Pope doth becken, the Emperour ought to exercise the iurisdiction of the secular power for the spiri∣tuall good. But if hee will not, or if it doth not seeme to him expedient, the Pope hath no other thing to do, because he hath not the materiall sword in command, but onely the Emperour, according to S. Bernard) dooth either speake of the direct power of the Pope to vse them materiall sword, or else contradict himselfe, when afterwards hee writeth, that the Pope may per accidens, depose the Emperour, by causing the people to depose him. For Ioannes Parisiensis in that his Treatise, de potestate Regia & Papali, doth expresly impugne both the direct, and indirect coer∣ciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence, and iuridically with temporall punishments, affir∣ming, as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth, that Excommunication, or some such like spirituall punish∣ment is the last, which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict. For although it belongeth to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge, to bring men backe to God, and to withdraw them from sinne, yet he hath not this, but according to the way or meanes gi∣uen him by God, which is by excluding from the Sacra∣ments and the participation of the faithfull.

37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore con∣tradict himselfe in affirming, that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people. For although he be of opinion, as I shewed beforet 1.21, that the people haue in some cases a coerciue power ouer their Prince and in some cases may depose him, and consequently the Pope may in those cases, if it be necessarie to the good of the Church, command the people, and with spirituall punishments compell them to vse their co∣erciue

power, and so the Pope may be said to depose a Prince per accidens by meanes of the people, with which philosophicall question I will not at this time, as I often said, intermeddle, yet concerning the Popes coerciue power to vse him selfe the temporall sword, or to depose the Emperour by way of iuridicall sen∣tence, (which is not repugnant to his authoritie to depose by meanes of the people, if the people haue any such authoritie to depose, which many learned Diuines, to whose opinion the ancient Fathers seeme to assent as I haue signified heretofore doe denie,)u 1.22 Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellar∣mines opinion, and expressely affirmeth, that the Pope hath no power to depriue iuridically, or by way of sentence, temporall Princes of their kingdomes, but only to inflict by way of coercion or constraint Eccle∣siasticall or spirituall Censures. And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authori∣tie, and also the Reply, which D. Schulckenius hath made therevnto.

38 Now to the authoritie of Pope Boniface the 8. I answer first that his words are to be vnderstood in that sense, as I expounded S. Bernard, whom hee, as Card: Bellarmine affirmeth, did imitate, to wit, that the temporall power is in order to spirituall good, or, which is all one, in spirituall things subiect to the com∣mand of the spirituall power, and that shee is to be in∣structed by the spirituall, not absolutely in temporall gouernment, but in Christian faith and religion, and that if shee goe out of the way, or erre in things be∣longing to Christian faith and religion, shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual, but with spirituall not tempo∣rall punishments. And in this sense it is very true, that the sword is vnder the sword, and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall, but by this it is onely signified, that temporall Princes are in spiritualls, but not in meere temporals, subiect to the spirituall com∣mand,

and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours.

39 Secondly, although Pope Boniface should vn∣derstand those words in this sense, that temporall Princes are, not onely in spiritualls, but also in tempo∣ralls subiect to the Popes power both to command, and also to punish temporally, yet his authoritie here∣in, as he is Pope, (for as he is a priuate Doctor, it is no greater then of other Doctors) is not of any great weight; considering first, that, as well obserueth D. Duvallx 1.23 a learned Schoole-Diuine, & one of the Kings Readers in the Colledge of Sorbon, although Pope Boniface doth make mention both of the spirituall, and temporall sword, and in the progresse of his Consti∣tion doth say, that the temporall sword is vnder the spiri∣tuall yet in the definition or conclusion (which chiefely as in the decrees of Councells is to be regarded, seeing that this onely bindeth to beleeue) this onely hee pronounceth in generall, but we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is necessarie to the saluation of euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome. But in what man∣ner all men must be subiect, it is not expressed in this definition; and therefore not to contradict this de∣finition it is sufficient to affirme, that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to com∣mand, and to punish s;piritually.

40 Secondly, for that this Extrauagant was recal∣led by his Successour Pope Clement the fift, in cap. meruit, de privilegijs, wherein hee declareth, that no preiudice shall arise to the King of France by that Extra∣uagant of Pope Boniface, but that all things shall be vn∣derstood to be in the same state, as they were before that definition, as well concerning the Church, as concerning the King, and Kingdome of France, Thirdly, for that all the authorities, which hee bringeth from holy Scriptures to proue, that the Pope hath both the tem∣porall and spirituall sword, doe proue only, that the Pope is the spirituall Pastour of the Church, and hath

spirituall power to binde, and loose, to iudge and pu∣nish spiritually, as, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth &c. and a spirituall man doth iudge all things, and he is iudged by none, which place some Catholike writers expound of publike and authenticall iudgments: For all the other places of holy Scripture, which Pope Boniface alledgeth, are either taken in the mysticall, and not in the literall sense, as those behold two swords here, and put vp thy sword into the scabard, but from the mysticall sense no forcible argument can bee drawne, as all Diuines doe grant, to proue any do∣ctrine, vnlesse to haue that mysticall sense it be decla∣red in other places of holy Scripture, or else they make nothing to the purpose, as are those words, which God spake to the Prophet Ieremie, Behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer the Gentiles, and ouer Kingdomes, that thou maiest plucke vp and destroy, and waste and dissipate, and build and plant, not to destroy nations, and kingdomes, and raise vp others, but by his preaching to plant virtues, and destroy vices, as S. Hierome expoundeth, and by foretelling the destru∣ction of Kingdomes and Nations, if they doe not re∣pent, and their increase and saluation if they will bee converted. Neither is the Pope S. Ieremies Successour in the spirit of prophesie, neither doe wee read, that Ieremie destroyed any kingdom, although he fulfilled all that, which he was appointed to do by Alm: God.

41. It is the same, saith Andreas Capella vpon this place, to appoint him ouer the Gentiles, and to giue him a Prophet in the Gentiles; as he said before. I giue thee power and authoritie, saith God, to declare and foretell in my name, as my Prophet, the ruines and wastings of the Gen∣tiles and of Kingdomes. That thou threaten my enemies, whom in their Countries I haue planted, placed, confirmed, erected that I will abolish them with captiuities, vnlesse they will repent. And contrariwise, that I will build them, and plant them againe, that is, restore to their ancient state,

them whom I shall destroy and abollish if they will acknow∣ledge their sinnes. And in these words all the charge of Ie∣remie is comprehended, and the matter of this whole booke is declared. For it is a prophecie of the destruction of the City, and temple, and of the captiuitie of the people, and of their returne from captiuity, and of the reedifying of the temple and City, and of the ouerthrow of other nations, and kingdomes. Thus Capella. And the same exposition of these words hath the Glosse vpon this place Besides Pope Boniface in this Extrauagant alledgeth for Scrip∣ture that, which is no Scripture, to wit, for the truth testifying the spirituall power hath to institute or instruct the earthly power, and to iudge it if it shall not be good, which words are not to be found in the holy Scripture.

42. Lastly, there is no more account to be made of the authoritie of Pope Boniface the eight for this his doctrine in this point, touching the Popes temporal authoritie ouer temporall Princes, if we take him, as a priuate Doctour deliuering his opinion, then of an o∣ther Doctour, as well learned as he was, who holdeth with the Canonists, that the Pope is direct Lord & King of the world not only spirituall, but also temporall; for that Pope Boniface was of this opinion, that the Pope hath direct power not only in spiritualls, but also in temporalls. Whereupon he wrote to Philip the faire, King of France, that he was subiect to him in spirituals and temporalls, and that all those, who should hold the contrary he reputed for heretikes: and that the kingdome of France by reason of the Kings disobedience was falne to the Church For which words Pope Boniface is taxed by Ioannes Ti∣liusx 1.24 Bishop of Meldune, by Robertus Guaguinusy 1.25, by Platinaz 1.26, and others, of great pride, impudencie and ar∣rogancie. Whereupon Paulus Aemilius (who doth o∣therwise greatly fauour Pope Boniface) writeth thus:* 1.27 Pope Boniface did add, at which all men did marmaile, that the King of France ought to reuerence the Pope not only in sacred manner, and by Episcopall right, as a Father

of our soules, but he ought also to acknowledge him, as his Prince by ciuill Iurisdiction, and in prophane matters and dominion. All this being considered, as also, that all the words of that Extrauagant are so generall, that they may be vnderstood as well, if not better, of the Popes direct dominion in temporalls, as of his indirect power to dispose of temporals, which is only in order to spirituall good, what great reckoning is to be made of this cōstitution of P. Boniface, it being withal reuer∣sed by P. Clemens the 5. who next but one succeeded him, I remit to the cōsideration of the iudicious Reader

Notes

• a 1.1

  Lib. 5. de R••m Pont. c. 7.
• b 1.2

  Vsurpare.
• c 1.3

  Nutu tuo.
• d 1.4

  Nu. 196. & seq.
• c 1.5

  Num. 99.
• * 1.6

  in Tract. de potest Regia, & Papali cap. 1••.
• f 1.7

  Pag. 386. ad num. 196.
• g 1.8

  Pag. 387.
• h 1.9

  Num. 8.
• i 1.10

  3. Par. q. 34. memb. 2. ar. 3.
• k 1.11

  Pag. 390.
• l 1.12

  Num. 18.
• m 1.13

  Pag. 393.
• * 1.14

  Part. 3. cap. 9. & seq.
• n 1.15

  Pag. 256.
• o 1.16

  Num. 90.91.181.223.341.
• p 1.17

  Num. 18.
• q 1.18

  Part. 1. ca. 3. nu. 7. & seq.
• r 1.19

  Lib. 5. de Rō. Pont. cap. 1.
• s 1.20

  Part. 3. ca. 9. & seq.
• t 1.21

  Part. 1. ca. 2.
• u 1.22

  in my Apo∣logie nu. 411. and here part: 1. cap. 3. nu. 5.
• x 1.23

  De suprema Rom. Pont. potest. part. 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263.
• x 1.24

  In Chron. ad annum 1302.
• y 1.25

  Lib. 7. in Philippo Pulch.
• z 1.26

  In vita Boni∣faci•• octaui.
• * 1.27

  In Philippo Pulchro.