vnlearned men are chiefely if not only lead and for confutation of these grounds he remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer and wrangleth onely about intrinsecall grounds the strength or weakenesse whereof vnlearned men cannot comprehend as though forsooth M. Fitzherbert who hath taken out of Fa. Lessius masked vnder the name of D. Singleton a whole Treatise touching the decree of the Councell of Lateran and put it here in his english Reply as though it were the inuention of his owne wit would haue spared to haue borrowed also of D. Schulckenius the answeres which he made to those Catholike Authors by me alledged if he had thought that those answeres would by English Catholikes haue beene so greatly applauded The first CHAPTER Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius a famous man of the Order of S. Benedict is examined 1. THe first authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation and also in my Apologie was of Iohn Trithemius a famous Abbot of the Order of S. Bennet and a man of singular learning and piety who writeth that in his time to wit in this present age wherein nothing hath been newly defined either by Popes or Councells concerning the Popes power to depose Princes for all the Decrees of Popes or Councells which by Card Bellarmine and others are vsually alledged to confirme the aforesaid authoritie were long before Trithemius his time this question touching the Popes power to depose the Emperour was in controuersie among the Schoolemen and as yet not decided by the Iudge His words are these b In Chronico monast Hirsaug ad annum 1106. He indeed Henry the fourth was the first of all the Emperours who was deposed by the Pope The Schoolemen or Scholastikes c Scholastici are at strife concerning this point and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no which question for that it belongeth not to vs let vs leaue vndiscussed d Pag. 127. ad num 33. 2. To this authoritie D. Schulckenius answereth in this manner If Trithemius by Schoolemen or Scholastikes vnderstand those who treate of Diuinitie scholastically as S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Aegidius Durandus and others he is manifestly deceiued neither is it any maruell if he be deceiued seeing that he was not skilfull in that learning But if he call Scholemen Grammarians Historiographers Poets he saith something For truely this point is in controuersie among Grammarians as Valla Historiographers as Sigebert Poets as Dante 's But although it be in controuersie among them and in their opinions the Iudge hath not as yet decided the question yet it is not in controuersie among learned Diuines and Lawyers who are not ignorant in holy Scriptures and in the venerable Councells of the holy Church For although among these there be a controuersie about the manner how the Pope can do it yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it And what need is there to aske aduise of Trithemius who oftentimes hath erred in the historie which he professeth as Antonius Posseuine hath noted in his Apparatus seeing that we haue the common opinion of Doctours and decrees of Councells which doe make the matter cleare Thus answereth D. Schulckenius 3. Marke now how many shifts and shufflings be in this answere If Trithemius saith he by Scholastickes or Scholemen vnderstand those who treate of Diunitie scholastically as S. Thomas c. he is manifestly deceiued As though forsooth only scholasticall Diuines and scholasticall Diuinitie were to be had in estimation and positiue Diuines who do not handle those subtile Schoole-quirks but do treat of holy Scriptures and other questions of Diuinitie after a plaine and positiue manner as they were wont to be handled by the ancient Fathers before Peter Lombard the Master of the sentences his time were not to be regarded True it is that Trithemius by the word Scholasticke doth commonly vnderstand not onely those who professe Scholasticall or School-Diuinity as it is now adaies distinguished from positiue Diuinity but by Scholastikes he vnderstood Schoolemen and Students in generall whether they professed Positiue or Scholasticall Diuinity as it may euidently appeare by his Treatises de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis and de viris Illustribus where he hath this word Scholastike aboue an hundred times and vseth it for a Schooleman student scholler or scholler like in generall 4. And although Trithemius by the word Scholastikes or Schoolemen had vnderstood not onely Students in Diuinity in generall but particularly those that professe Scholasticall Diuinity as it is distinguished from positiue yet that he had beene therein manifestly deceiued as D. Schulckenius so boldly affirmeth is manifestly vntrue For Iacobus Almainus a famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine of Paris and according to Fa. Azor the Iesuite e Lib. 2. Instit cap. 14. a Classicall Doctour who flourished in Trithemius his time doth also affirme f In Lib. de Dom. nat ciu Eccl. in pro. 2 ae concl as I obserued in my Apologie g Num. 122. that very many or most Doctours among which some no doubt were Schoole-Diuines are of opinion that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as to imprison but that the power which hee hath by the institution of Christ is onely extended to Excommunication or some such spirituall punishment and that his vsing of other punishments doth proceede meerely from the positiue Law and priuiledges of Princes It belongeth saith hee to the nature of the Laike power to haue authority to inflict he meaneth by way of coercion and constraint temporall punishment as are death exile priuation of goods c. but the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of God can inflict no such punishment yea cannot so much as imprison vt plerisque Doctoribus placeâ— as very many or most Doctours for so much the word plerique doth signifie are of opinion but it is extended onely to spirituall punishment as Excommunication and the other punishments which it vseth are from the pure positiue Law And a little before he affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall and Lay power of Iurisdiction in the externall Court are so distinguished in respect of the punishments which can bee inflicted by either of them that by one onely a corporall punishment and by the other precisely a spirituall can bee inflicted Now what words can bee more cleere then these to which neuerthelesse D. Schulckenius giueth no answer and yet my Aduersary after his vsuall manner very boldly affirmeth that D. Schulckenius hath answered particularly to euery one of the authorities which I brought either in my Apologie or Theologicall Disputation 5. The like words hath Iohn Gerson another famous Classicall Doctour and Schoole-Diuine of Paris who liued before Trithemius Almaines time There are saith Gerson h De potest
And therefore I will easily grant that the Pope may exact if need require not only of the Romane Emperour but also of all other Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance this is that I vtterly deny neither will Card. Bellarmine or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus a man excellently learned and a Classicall Doctour that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes and to dispose of their temporall dominions Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctour of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient 1. THe third authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 7. and also in my Apologie b Num. 121. was of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike and as Trithemius relateth c In verbo Ioannes Parisiensis most learned in the holy Scriptures and who in the Vniuersitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Professour and left behind him many Disciples He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran which is now adaies so greatly vrged by our Aduersaries This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion that if a King should become an heretike and incorrigible and a contemner of Ecclesiasticall Censures the Pope may do somewhat with the people whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dignitie and be deposed by the people to wit he may excommunicate all those to whom it belongeth to depose the king who should obey him as their Soueraigne Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion that it belongeth not to the Pope to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall or which is all one to depriue them d Almainus de potest Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8. of their kingdomes by a definitiue sentence in such sort that after the sentence be published they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie For he affirmeth e De potest Regia Papali cap. 14. ad 20. that excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge For although saith he it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not power to doe this but by vsing those meanes which be giuen him by God which is by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle yet concerning the principall controuersie which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether it be hereticall erroneous or temerarious to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely as I haue now shewed contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Disputation 2 Marke now good Reader with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis saith he f Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num 4. is not for the contrarie opinion For although he giueth lesse to the Pope then he ought yet he giueth as much as sufficeth for our purpose For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope doe depose immediately by his sentence or that he may by his right withdraw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is and euer hath been whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence in such sort that after his sentence of depriuation be denounced they who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie are then no more Kings and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis blusheth not to affirme that it doth not appertaine to the present question whether the Pope may depose immediately by his sentence which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle For most certaine it is euen according to Card Bellarmines owne doctrine g in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. that the Pope can not withdraw discharge or absolue subiects from their obedience immediatly by his sentence vnles he haue authoritie to depriue immediately by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie for that authoritie in a Prince and obedience in subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect as the dignitie power or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour saith Suarez h in Defensione fides c. lib. 6. cap 3. nu 6. and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince and is not depriued of his Princely power is clearely repugnant saith Card Bellarmine i in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. p. 202. to the law of God and nature 3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods or dominions either of Kings or priuate men And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee affirmeth k De potest Regia Pap. cap 6. 7. that the Pope is not a Lord to whom the propertie of Church liuings doth belong but onely a dispencer of them but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer but a declarer of the law And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners all the goods of the faithfull yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated the Pope who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie but of all the faithfull as they are faithfull hath authoritie as he is generall informer of faith and manners in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull to ordaine them to be exposed as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās or other such like accident And this ordination of the Pope is only a
declaration of the law to which he may by Ecclesiasticall Censures compell the faithfull But in cases not of necessitie but of some speciall vtilitie or when it is not apparant that the goods of Lay-men doe helpe such vtilitie or necessitie the Pope hath not authoritie to compell any man but concerning this hee may giue indulgences for giuing aide to the faithfull and no other thing is granted him in my opinion Thus writeth Parisiensis wherefore in his opinion the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Lay-man of his goods or any part thereof euen in necessitie of faith and manners but onely to declare that he is bound by the law of God to giue such part of his goods as the necessitie of the Church shall require which if he neglect to doe the Pope hath no other authoritie to compell him therevnto then by Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the last punishments which the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can inflict 4 In the very like manner Parisiensis discourseth of the disposing of Kingdomes and of deposing temporall Princes as I before related out of him For first he affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose a King iuridically or which is all one to depriue him by a iuridicall sentence of his right to reigne and secondly that the people or temporall common-wealth may and in some exorbitant cases are bound to depose their Prince and so the Pope not by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation but by declaring what the people are by the law of God bound to doe and by Ecclesiasticall Censures compelling them therevnto may according to Parisiensis concurre to the deposing of a Prince by meanes of the people which if the people notwithstanding the Popes Censures neglect to doe the Pope hath no further power to depose him for that Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to him the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict 5 Wherefore two things are affirmed by Parisiensis the one that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes immediately by his sentence of their Princely power and this is that only which is in controuersie betwixt mee and Card Bellarmine the other that the people or temporall common-wealth haue that authoritie in some exorbitant cases and this is only a philosophicall question and wherewith I would neuer intermeddle as being impertinent to the question concerning the Popes authoritie to depriue him And although many Catholike Doctors doe agree with Parisiensis in this point yet many other learned Catholikes whom I cited in my Apologie l Num. 411. doe dissent from him herein to which opinion doe incline very many of the ancient Fathers who expounding those words of the King and Prophet m Psal 50. I haue sinned to thee alone doe affirme that Soueraigne Princes for that they are inferiour to God alone to wit in temporalls can be punished with temporall punishments by God alone And therefore D. Schulckenius may be greatly ashamed to affirme so boldly that Parisiensis doth not make for my opinion and that it doth not appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope may depose Princes immediately by his sentence or by meanes of the people seeing that the onely question betwixt vs is whether the Pope hath power to depriue Princes of their Royall power immediately by his sentence and not what authoritie the common-wealth hath to depriue them 6 But D. Schulckenius perceiuing that this his answer to the authoritie of Parisiensis was but a meere shift and euasion hath reserued but not in this place another answer whereby he imagined to cleane ouerthrow the authority of this famous Doctour and Schoole-Diuine For hee beneath n Pag. 394. ad num 201. replying to the answer which I made to those words of S. Bernard vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentas c. wherof beneath o Part. 2. ca. 9. I will treate more at large in confirmation of which my answer I cited the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis D. Schulckenius writeth thus There is no great regard to bee had of the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis whatsoeuer he saith for that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and also in the 14. chapter of the same Treatise hee mingleth many errours The like answer but more biting maketh Fa Lessius in his Singleton It is to little purpose saith he p Pag. 29. what Ioannes Parisiensis doth say because he alledgeth very many other false citations and histories as being a Schismatike Another censure but more temperate Card. Bellarmine giueth of him in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers Ioannnes Parisiensis saith he q Pag. 380. of the Order of the Preachers was famous about the yeere 1296. Hee wrote vpon the foure bookes of the sentences and diuerse Quodlibets but especially of Kingly and Papall power and because it was his happe to liue in trouble sometimes by reason of the discord betweene Pope Boniface the eight and Philip the faire King of France and hee liued and taught at Paris hee seemeth to be more inclined towards the King then the Pope 5 But truely it is strange that men of such singular learning and religious profession should so rashly and without sufficient grounds be so transported as contrarie to the rules of Christian Charitie and Iustice to defame and slaunder learned and vertuous men and those especially who beeing dead cannot defend themselues For first it is an apparant and too too manifest slander which Fa Lessius speaking with all dutifull respect to his reuerence doth affirme that Ioannes Parisiensis was a Schismatike neither can he out of any approoued Authour or by any probable reason prooue any such thing and therfore what great account hee hath to make at the dreadfull day of iudgement for vniustly taking away as much as lieth in him the good name of so famous a man and in so fowle and hainous a crime as Schisme is I remit to the examination of his owne conscience Besides that Parisiensis mingleth many errours in the 14. chapter of his Kingly and Papall power as D. Schulckenius affirmeth and that he alledgeth many false citations and histories as Fa Lessius saith is also vntrue and it had beene fitting for them to haue alledged some one of them that thereby some credit might haue beene giuen them for the rest Vnlesse whatsoeuer is not agreeable to D. Schulckenius his doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine must bee accounted an errour and whatsoeuer Fa. Lessius hath not seeene or read must be esteemed a false citation or historie True it is that Parisiensis in that 14. chapter doth teach that the Pope cannot iudge of temporall causes but in regard of the sinne and that hee cannot depose Princes by his sentence and that the last punishment which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict are spirituall and Ecclesiasticall
one person So likewise the ciuill and spirituall power are somtimes found diuided as long since in the Apostles time somtimes vnited as now and when they are vnited they make one body or common wealth 2. To this argument I answered in my Apologie b num 139. 140. that from the words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene onely these two things can be gathered The first that the spirituall power is more worthy and more noble then the temporall and that therefore the temporall must in worthinesse yeeld and giue place to the spirituall The second is that Christian Princes although in temporalls and in things belonging to ciuill gouernment they are supreme on earth and therefore subiect to none yet in that they are Christians they are subiect in spirituals and in things belonging to Christian Religion to the command of spirituall Pastours of the flocke of Christ For these bee the expresse wordes which he vsed to the Christian President For the law of Christ doth make you also subiect to my power and authoritie for we also haue authoritie to command I add also a more noble and more perfect vnlesse it be meete that the spirit do submit her power to the flesh and heauenly things doe giue place to earthly From which words this onely can be inferred that the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall and that all Christian Princes and Magistrates as they are the sheepe of Christ are in spirituall things subiect to the spirituall Pastours of the Church which all Catholikes will freely grant But that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the supreme visible heads here on earth do make one totall body or common wealth as the soule and body do make one man or that the temporall power among Christians as it is temporall for this much doth signifie the temporall and spirituall power taking them in abstracto or which is all one that temporall Princes are in meere temporall causes subiect to spirituall Pastours cannot with any shew of probabilitie bee gathered out of those words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene 3. Wherefore the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is nothing like to the vnion of the body and soule in man for that the body is a substantiall matter and the soule a substantiall forme and therefore being vnited they make one substantiall compound which is called man who therefore hath in him actually properly and formally both body and soule as euery compound hath in him the parts whereof it is compounded but the ciuill and spirituall power are not among Christians vnited as two parts compounding really and actually one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for that according to Card. Bellarmines owne doctrine the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is compounded only of spirituall power and not of ciuill power as ciuill is distinguished from spirituall but ciuill and spirituall power ciuill power and spirituall subiection ciuill subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and ciuill subiection are only vnited among Christians as two accidents for example Musike and Phisike are vnited in one man which vnion being only accidentall and in subiect is not sufficient to cause the temporall and spirituall power to make truely properly and formally one body whereof the Pope is bead but only to make the same man either to haue in him both temporall and spirituall power or temporall power and spirituall subiection or both temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and temporall subiection and consequently the same man to bee guided directed and gouerned in temporall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the temporall power and in spirituall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the spirituall power As the vnion of Musike and Phisike in one man although it be only materiall accidentall and in subiect yet it maketh the same man to be both a Musician and a Physitian and as he is a Musitian to be guided and directed by the lawes and precepts of Musicke and as a Phisitian by the rules precepts of phisike but it doth not make Musike to be guided and directed by Physike or a Musicion as he is a Musician to be guided and directed by a Physition as he is a Physitian So likewise the aforesaid vnion of temporall and spirituall power of temporall power and spirituall subiection c. in one man doth not make the temporall power to be subiect to the spirituall or a temporall Prince as hee is a temporall Prince or which is all one in temporall causes to bee guided directed and gouerned by the spirituall power as it is spirituall But of this similitude of the soule and body wee shall haue occasion to treat againe beneath c Cap. 8. 4. Pardon me good Reader that sometimes I repeate the same things somewhat often it is not to make my booke the bigger and to fill it vp with idle repetitions of the same things as my Aduersaries to disgrace me are pleased to lay to my charge not considering that they themselues do often times commit the like but it is onely to cleere thy vnderstanding and to make thee throughly comprehend the difficultie and in what manner the temporall and spirituall power are vnited and subordained among Christians considering that my Aduersaries to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to punish temporally by way of constraint doe so often inculcate this vnion and subordination as a principall ground whereon the Popes power in temporalls doth depend And thus you haue seene how weakely Card. Bellarmine and disagreeably to his owne principles hath laboured to proue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common wealth whereof the Pope is head now you shall see how weakely also and not conformably to his owne doctrine he endeauoureth to proue that the temporall power among Christians is subiect and subordained to the spirituall Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes touching this point are rehearsed 1. FIrst therefore that you may perceiue the true state of the question and wherein I doe agree with Card Bellarmine and wherein we differ I doe agree with him in this that Christian Princes in whom the supreme temporall power doth reside being the sheepe of Christ no lesse then inferiour persons are subiect to the supreme visible Pastour of the Church of Christ but the question is in what things and also in what manner they are subiect Secondly we also agree in this that Christian Princes are in spirituall things or which doe belong to Christian faith and Religion subiect not onely to the directiue or commanding power but also in spirituall punishments to the coerciue or punishing power of spirituall
to constraine 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 Boniface 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 intend 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 answer which I gaue to the authoritie of S. Bernard I affirmed that S. Bernards words are so to be vnderstood 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 materiall sword themselues as they are Ecclesiasticall men they are forbidden by the expresse command of Christ Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth k Pag. 390. that for as much at appertaineth to the vse of the materiall sword he assenteth 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 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 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 spirituall sword Thus D. Schulckenius 24 But if D. Schulckenius meane that Ecclesiasticall 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 auerreth 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 vnderstood 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 vnderstand of such an instruction which implyeth no command of Christ but onely a certaine decencie counsell and aduise for that it doth not beseeme the perfection of those men who haue a spirituall vocation to fight with the materiall sword hee plainly contradicteth 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 materiall sword which command of Christ as I said before can bee no other then that Ecclesiasticall men can not as they are Ecclesiasticall men vse the materiall 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 defence 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 gathered 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 dispose of temporalls and implyeth a power to vse and draw forth the materiall sword it selfe which S. Bernard expressely denyeth to the Pope and that therefore 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 Num. 18. did before affirme Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius replyeth m Pag. 393. 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 fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword but hee hath power to constraine the Emperour first with Ecclesiasticall punishments and afterwards
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 Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people 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 vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose 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 anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding 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 promise 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 performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded 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 different 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 Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor 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 Emperour 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 Num. 18. 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 reckoning 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 spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely 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 authorities 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 vnderstanding 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 themselues 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 Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq 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 neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
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 either 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 temporall Prince should heerein transgresse the command of his spirituall Pastor supposing it to bee lawfull hee should indeed offend against religion in vsing his Regall power and authority contrary to the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastor which command was imposed 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 manner 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 depriue 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 religion but not against iustice for that hee doth not excercise his Regall power but vpon those who are his Subiects and doe owe vnto him true loyalty and temporall obedience 41 And truely if the aforesaid obiection were of force that the temporall Prince hath no power or authority ouer Clergie men who are subiect to him in temporalls against the lawfull command of his spirituall 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 consequently 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 priuiledges 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 authority of spirituall Pastours to exempt Cleargie men from the temporall power of Christian Princes that thereby they may clearely perceiue what kinde of argument may be drawne from the exemption of Cleargie 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 temporall thinges are subiect to spirituall temporall endes to spirituall endes temporall power to the spirituall power the temporall sword to the spirituall sword the flesh to the spirit the Moone to the Sunne and temporall 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 vnderstand the true sense and meaning of a certaine proposition which Card. Bellarmine in his Schulckenius doth often inculcate as though there were some great mystery 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 onely as he is a Christian man but also as he is a Christian Prince and the same he affirmeth of a Christian â—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 Christian 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 meaning 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 subiect 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 either temporall power the knowledge of the lawe warfare or physicke are among Christians per se subiect 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 power correct or punish Christian Princes Lawiers Soldiers 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
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 IESVITE Wherein ALSO ARE CONFVTED THE chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine hath made against WIDDRINTONS Apologie for the right or Soueraigntie of temporall PRINCES BY Roger Widdrington an English Catholike LVKE 6. Benedicite maledicentibus vobis orate pro calumniantibus vos Blesse them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you IHS Permissu Superiorum 1616. THE CONTENTS of this Treatise The Epistle to English Catholikes Wherein 1. IT is shewed first that it is not safe for the consciences of Catholikes to adhere alwaies to the Pope and neglect the command of their temporall Prince 2 That if the Pope should exact from Catholikes that obedience which is due onely to their temporall Prince they should by obeying the Pope disobey the command of Christ and be truly traitours to their Prince 3 That it is possible for Popes to challenge such an obedience and that de facto Pope Boniface did challenge it of the King and inhabitants of France 4 That it is probable that the Pope that now is in condemning the late Oath of Allegeance and in challenging a power to depose temporall Princes demaundeth of English Catholikes the foresaid temporall Allegiance and vsurpeth that authoritie which Christ hath not giuen him 5 That although it should be granted that it is probable that the Pope hath such an authoritie yet so long as it is but probable it is titulus sine re a title which can neuer be put in execution without manifest disobedience to God and iniustice to temporall Princes 6 That the Pope neither is the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes nor as yet by any authenticall instrument hath defined that he hath power to depose temporall Princes and that therefore it is probable that he hath no such power 7 That the manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning my bookes and commanding me to purge my selfe and the fallacious dealing of my Aduersaries doth clearely shew that they in their consciences are not perswaded that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith 8 The causes of the beginning and increase of this doctrine are briefely insinuated and that if all temporall Princes would vse the like meanes to defend their Soueraigntie this controuersie would be quickly at an end 9 That Catholikes are bound to read and examine this question otherwise their ignorance will be willfull damnable and inexcusable 10 That they may lawfully read my bookes notwithstanding the Popes or rather Card. Bellarmines prohibition to the contrary and that I deserued not at their hands such vncharitable words and deeds for the loue and paines I haue taken for their sakes The Preface to the Reader Wherein M. r Fitzherberts Preface is confuted the matter which Widdrington handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truly probable and to be neither preiudiciall to his Maiesties seruice nor to the consciences of Catholikes and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against that rule of the Law brought by Widdrington In dubijs melior est conditio possidentis In doubts or disputable causes the condition of him who hath possession is to be preferred are confuted The first Part. wherein The authorities and testimonies of those learned Catholikes which Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation brought against the Popes power to depose Princes and which M. r Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer and for answer to them remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer are briefely and perspicuously examined and the Replyes which Doctor Schulckenius maketh against them are confuted Chap. 1. Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius an Abbot and famous writer of the order of S. Benedict is examined and the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against it are ouerthrowne Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer and Classicall Doctor is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are confuted Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctor of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against him are proued to be insufficient Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. r Doctor Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is briefely examined Chap. 5. Wherein are set downe the authorities of many English Catholikes who haue publikely declared their opinions as M. r George Blackwell M. r William Warmington M. r Iohn Barclay M. r William Barret Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor Cole both the Harpesfields Mr Edward Rishton M. r Henry Orton M. r Iames Bosgraue M. r Iohn Hart M. Iames Bishop related by Mr. Camden and those thirteene learned and vertuous Priests and most of them as yet liuing whose names I related in my Theologicall Disputation and whose protestation which I set downe verbatim in my Appendix to Suarez must needes suppose that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes as out of Suarez I conuince in this chapter Chap. 6. Wherein the authority of the Kingdome and State of France is largely debated the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against Petrus Pithaeus and Bochellus are confuted and Sigebert is defended from Schisme of which he is wrongfully taxed by Card. Baronius and D. Schulckenius The second part wherein All the principall arguments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians wheron Mr. Fitzherbert and all the other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes doe chiefely ground that doctrine together with the Replies which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same vnion and subordination are exactly examined Chap. 1. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is declared Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from those words of S. Paul Wee being many are one body in Christ to prooue that the temporall spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head is answered and Card. Bellarmine conuinced of manifest contradiction Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man which is so often vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body as the body and soule doe make one man is declared and cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to make nothing for his purpose Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes concerning this poynt are rehearsed Chap. 5. Wherein the first argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
innocencie by answering all his obiections and by clearing my selfe of all those imputations which hee hath falsly laid to my charge and if in defending my selfe I lay open his fraude and ignorance and returne his slanders backe vpon himselfe I ought not therefore to be taxed of calumniation seeing that to detect the slanders of the Aduersarie is not d Cap. 5. Apologiae to vse Card. Bellarmines owne words to be accounted a defaming Now to draw neere vnto the matter 4. Before my Aduersarie come to examine my Answere to his arguments he thinketh it not amisse to say somewhat concerning me the matter which I handle and the manner how I proceede therein First then touching me he affirmeth e In his Preface num 3. that whereas I call my selfe by the name of Widdrington it is well knowne to many that M. Roger Widdrington vnder whose shaddow I shroude my selfe is farre different from me in qualitie habit and profession And albeit f Num. 3. he is not ignorant what my true name and qualitie is yet he forbeareth to declare it for iust respects and will only say of me for the present that whereas our Aduersaries haue heretofore leuied and Prest many souldiers of their owne profession to maintaine their quarrells against vs they haue now in this late quarrell of the oath Prest one of ours I meane saith he this Authour who so much presumeth of his owne skill and strength that albeit the prouerbe saith Ne Hercules contra duos yet he feareth not to encounter tenne at once yea hopeth as it seemeth to wrest the club out of Hercules his hand and to beate him with his owne weapon For he taketh vpon him to ouerthrow Card. Bellarmine with his owne arguments to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions c. 5. But first whether Roger Widdrington be the true or supposed the sole or ioint Authour of that Disputation it little auaileth to the matter which is now in controuersie and when my Aduersarie shall name more plainely that person whom he forbearing as he saith to name yet cunningly nameth I doubt not but that hee will not be afraid to answere him more fully neither will all my Aduersaries clamours and threatnings discourage him from defending the truth his Prince and Countrey for the loue wherof not for any hope of temporall lucre or preferment or for to shew his wit as my Aduersary falsly affirmeth he will not be ashamed to be Prest on to write against Mr. Fitzherbert or any other such like Authour who liuing in other Countries and out of danger to loose any thing but rather in hope to obtaine preferment by their writings would presse English Catholikes to defend with danger of loosing all they haue and of incurring his Maiesties high displeasuer that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith which the State of France hath accounted scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious In the meane time let this suffice that he is a childe of the Catholike Romane Church and as good a Catholike if not better then Mr. Fitzherbert is if we will dulie consider the true nature and definition of a Catholike and that he is no true Catholike who with true Catholike and supernaturall faith beleeueth doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions and which consequently are subiect to errour to which true Catholike faith cannot in any wise be exposed 6. Secondly it is vntrue that I doe presume so much of my owne skill and strength that I dare aduenture to wrest out the club of Hercules his hand as my Aduersarie affirmeth or to encounter vpon equall tearmes with Card. Bellarmine or any one of those learned writers whom I named in my Disputation accounting my selfe to be farre inferior to euery one of them in skill and strength only excepting this my Aduersarie whose skill and strength I doe not greatly feare it being well knowne of what sufficiencie he is and that his skill in Philosophie or Schoole Diuinitie is not great although he hath prettie skill in making vse of other mens labours and answering in English what other men haue before replied in Latine but if Hercules will leaue his club and fight with a bulrush it is no great maistrie for a weaker man to withstand him if Card. Bellarmine insteed of the expresse words of holy Scripture and the true meaning thereof so declared to be by the ancient Fathers or the vniuersall Church or vndoubted definitions of Generall Councels or necessarie inferences deducted from them which are the only weapons wherewith Catholike doctrine can be conuinced will flie to ouer wrested similitudes false or at the most probable suppositions doubtfull and vncertaine collections to proue an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith as he and the rest who follow him in this controuersie for the Popes power to depose Princes haue done it is an easie matter for one who hath lesse skill and strength then they haue to withstand them yea and to vanquish them and a hundred such others being so weakely armed 7. And therefore very false and friuolous is that which my Aduersarie affirmeth g Num 4. and 5. that Widdrington for so still I will call my selfe taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such art and sleight that whiles he fighteth against the Church he pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authority yet he dedicateth his booke to the Pope laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did But how vainely he laboureth in all this he may easily see if he call to minde what he hath learned in the Catholike Chucrch to wit how inexpugnable is the rocke and seate of Peter which the proud gates of hell cannot ouercome For I doe not batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church whom I reuerence and loue as my deare mother and to whose Censure I euer haue and do also now most humbly submit my selfe and all my writings but the priuate opinions of some few Catholikes especially Iesuites who will needes enforce vpon the Christian world doubtfull disputable and vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of supernaturall faith which onely is the fortresse of the Catholike Church Neither doe I vndermine that immoueable rocke of S. Peter whereon Christ hath built his Church but those scandalous seditious damnable and pernitious positions for so the State of France doth call them of murthering Princes and thrusting them out contrarie to the rules of law and reason of the lawfull possession of their kingdomes by an authority which is only doubfull and questionable Neither do I impugne that authoritie of the Pope which is certainely knowne to be granted him by Christ but that new doctrine of some few writers
intangle mens consciences by wrangling and cauilling whiles first he requireth euident demonstrations to proue a probable doctrine and secondly dissembleth the true state of the question confounding the absolute proposition and the proofes thereof with the modall which distinction doth expresse the true state of the question and discouereth both his fraude and weakenesse not onely in this but almost in all the rest of his Replyes and thirdly he concealeth the answere which I gaue to this argument taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of other learned men and also the reasons why so many learned Catholikes whose bookes are now extant haue from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth defended this opinion for the Popes power to depose Princes And thus much concerning my Aduersaries second admonition the weakenesse whereof will also presently more cleerely appeare by my answere to his third and fourth admonition 27 Therefore it is to be considered for the third point saith my Aduersarie h Nu. 15. what Widdrington meaneth by a probable opinion or a probable answere which no doubt he vnderstandeth so that whatsoeuer he saith must be held for probable how absurd so euer it be for otherwise he could not challenge to himselfe such a priuiledge of probabilitie as he doth his arguments and answers being so weake and impertinent as you shall finde them to be in which respect he is faine to dissemble the answeres already made by some to his former arguments and authorities in his Apologie whereto he now remitteth his Reader very often without taking so much as any knowledge of the confutation thereof as though the same had neuer been answered or that euery assertion or position of his being once laid downe must needs stand for an eternall law or were a decree of the Medes and Persians i Dan 6. quod non licet immutari 28 But not to returne these bitter speeches of my Aduersarie backe vpon himselfe which with the same facilitie and with farre better reason I might doe first It is very vntrue that I take probable for whatsoeuer I doe say how absurd so euer it be as this man if it were lawfull for mee to vse his absurd word very absurdly affirmeth that without doubt I doe Neither doe I take probable for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie as Cicero tooke probable in his Paradoxes but I take probable as Philosophers and Diuines doe take it as it is distinguished from demonstratiue and fallacious to wit for that which is approued by wise and learned men in the art which they professe which therefore as in speculation may be embraced without any imputation of errour or folly so in practise it may bee followed without any note of imprudence or sinne As in a matter of Physicke that is accounted probable which is approued by learned Physitions of Law by learned Lawiers and of Diuinitie by learned Catholike Diuines Secondly it is also vntrue that I haue in my Theologicall Disputation dissembled the answeres made by some to my former arguments and authorities in my Apologie whereto I remit my Reader oftentimes considering that my Theologicall Disputation was wholly finished and in the presse before the Replyes of D. Schulkenius and of D. Weston and also my Aduersaries Supplement were published so that I could take no notice of them in my Disputation for which cause I was constrained to touch them briefely onely in an Admonition to the Reader But my Aduersarie himselfe to make his owne Replyes to seeme the more probable and my answeres absurd foolish impertinent ridiculous for so hee is pleased to call them is not ashamed to dissemble in many points the true state of the question and also the answeres which in my Theological Disputation I made to his chiefest Replyes especially those whereby hee laboureth to terrifie the timerous consciences of vnlearned Catholikes with the pretence of his new Catholike faith with the authoritie of the Popes Breues and the testimonies of so many learned men who haue condemned the oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation 29. Now let vs see his fourth consideration by which the Reader may perceiue how insufficiently he declareth what is a probable argument or opinion and how little he satisfieth the vnderstanding of vnlearned Catholikes who by his obscure and confuse description of a probable argument cannot perceiue what argument or opinion is probable k Num. 17. Fourthly saith he it is to be considered that to make an argument or proofe probable it sufficeth not that it seeme good and true in it selfe but it must also be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments and proofes of the contrary opinion for often it falleth out that the reasons of one part are so pregnant that they seeme to conuince and yet when they are weighed with the reasons of the other part they are neither pregnant nor so much as probable for according to the old prouerbe one tale is good vntill an other be heard 30. To which purpose it is to be considered that many heretikes and namely the Arians of whom there are many euen at this day both doe and may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for their opinion than Widdrington doth or can for his considering their aboundant allegation of Scriptures their subtill shifts in answering the arguments and obiections of the Catholikes the great multitude of learned men of their Sect in times past and their dignitie in the Church the Conuenticles assembled and held in their fauour and finally the ample propagation of their opinion and Sect especially in the time of Constantius the Emperour For which respects their followers at this day doe hold their doctrine not only for probable but also for infallibly true and condemne the contrary for pernicious heresie whereas Widdringtons grounds and proofes of his opinion seeme to himselfe so weake that he dare not affirme them to be more then probable 31. Therefore as there is no good Christian that doth now hold the arguments of the Arrians to be so much as probable considering the potent reasons and proofes of the Catholike doctrine in that point so albeit the arguments and authorities which Widdrington produceth were they farre more plausible and pregnant then they are yet no Catholike could esteeme them to be any way probable being compared and ballanced with the irrefregable proofes of the other part I meane the arguments and necessarie consequences drawne from the holy Scriptures the authoritie of almost all the learned Doctors and Diuines that haue written of that point and the practise of the Church for some hundreths of yeares confirmed by nine or ten Councells l Sâ—e Supplem chap. 2. num 76. 77. whereof some haue been the greatest that euer were in Gods Church and therefore I say that all this being well weighed no Catholike man of sound wit or iudgment can imagine this mans arguments which he himselfe houldeth but for probable to haue
of that singular opinion and of one onely Doctor and seeth it to bee grounded vpon the authoritie of one onely Doctor hee ought not to account it probable to this effect that he may prudently follow it in practise against his owne and the common opinion of all others 46 But if it be not a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour although the learned men of the contrarie opinion doe vrge for their doctrine some law decree or definition which the contrarie part hath seene and examined and hath in some sort answered therevnto it is lawfull for any learned man according to Vasquez to follow in practise that other lesse secure and lesse common opinion against his owne opinion albeit it be the more secure and common opinion For when we perceiue saith Vasquez that the Authors of the contrarie opinion haue seene and considered all the grounds and reasons for our opinion and haue obserued that obiection taken from that law or decree and haue endeauoured to answer them and that they were not convinced by them we may iustly thinke that we may prudently and lawfully follow in practise the opinion of those other men against our owne neither ought wee to suppose that our reasons are euident demonstrations and which doe make the contrarie opinion to be voide of all probabilitie 47 And this doctrine of Vasquez is euident in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope aboue a Generall Councell which hath been so long debated betwixt the Doctors of Rome and Paris For both of them affirme that their opinion is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is confirmed by the practise and decrees yea and definitions of Generall Councels and yet both of thē because they are approued by learned Catholike Diuines are probable although as Nauarra h In cap. Nouit de Iudicijs notab 3. nu 84. out of Ioannes Maior a learned Diuine of Paris relateth that the opinion of the Parishioners is not permitted to bee defended at Rome nor the opinion of the Romanes to bee defended at Paris And therefore into what fowle tearmes trow you would my Aduersarie breake if the Doctors of Paris who doe resolutely hold that the Pope is inferiour to a Generall Councell should argue against Card. Bellarmine and others of his opinion in the same manner as this fowle mouthed man who hath still in his mouth absurd ridiculous impertinent foolish impudent temerarious impious hereticall or erroneous that their doctrine hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also it is grounded vpon holy Scriptures confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Counsels but especially of the famous Councell of Constance which did not onely ordaine the practise of it in some cases and therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue but did also expressely define and consequently command all Christians to beleeue the verity of that doctrine and that therefore Card. Bellarmine is falne into heresie for not beleeuing that doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleeued defined and ordained to be practised and also to be beleeued 48 By this it is apparant that Vasquez doctrine is to be vnderstood generally of all cases questions and opinions which are in controuersie among learned Catholikes although one or both parts doe pretend their doctrine to be of faith and to be grounded vpon the authoritie of holy Scripture or some decree of Pope or Generall Councell and that learned Catholikes ought not according to Vasquez to bee easily condemned of temeritie and much lesse of errour or heresie who doe not follow the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of other Catholike Doctors although this common opinion seeme to some followers thereof to be an vndoubted doctrine and to be confirmed by some Decree Law or Canon of Pope or Generall Counsell which Decree Law or Canon those learned Catholikes haue seene examined and answered although their answeres doe not satisfie the contrarie side And conformably to this doctrine did Vasquez as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation dispute that question whether there be any habits which are infused by God alone For although he expressely affirmeth that it is the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of the Schoole-Diuines that there bee certaine vertues called Theologicall Faith Hope and Charitie which of their owne nature are infused by God alone and that some Doctors as Andreas Vega doe hold this doctrine to bee of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall or erroneous endeauouring to proue the same not out of the Councell of Vienna which did onely declare it to be the more probable opinion but out of the Councell of Trent yet Vasquez would not condemne the contrarie opinion not onely of heresie as my Aduersarie would cunningly perswade the Reader but not so much as of temeritie From whence I inferred that according to Vasquez doctrine which my Aduersarie fraudulently concealeth the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of Schoole-Diuines and which some of them thinke to be a point of faith may sometimes bee reiected without any note not onely of heresie or errour but also of temeritie which doctrine doth cleerely satisfie the common argument drawne from the authoritie of learned men who hold the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and consequently the oath to bee repugnant to faith and saluation And thus much concerning the first and second point of my Aduersaries fourth Admonition 49 As touching the third point it is apparantly vntrue and very iniurious to Catholikes and to Catholike Religion to affirme that the Arrians or any other heretikes may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for the establishing of their heresies then may I and those other Catholikes who hold it probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes For besides that the Arrian heresie was expressely condemned in the first eight Generall Counsels and afterwards in many others and the Arrians haue euer been accounted heretikes by ancient Fathers and all other Catholikes wheras there cannot be alledged so much as any shew or colour of any one definition of a Generall Councell wherein the doctrine which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is condemned for hereticall but all the proofes that my Aduersaries alledge that the Pope hath such a power are onely ouer-wrested similitudes facts examples inferences and supposisitions of their owne drawne from the authoritie of holy Scriptures Popes or Councels when the Philosophers and Diuines doe affirme that the authoritie of learned and skilfull men sufficeth to make the doctrine or opinion probable which they approue they vnderstand of learned and skilfull men approuing a doctrine belonging to the art which they professe according to that vulgar maxime vnicuique in sua arte perito credendum est we must giue credit to euery man skilfull in his art 50 So that in a point of Law the authoritie of skilfull Lawiers and not of skilfull Physitions in a point of Physike the
Pope is said to be in possession of his right to depose Princes so Princes may be said to bee in possession of their right not to be deposed by the Pope and therefore in this cause is like or equall doubtfull or disputable as well for Princes right not to be deposed as for the Popes right to depose them and on the other side Princes are not onely in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope but also in quiet peaceable and lawfull possession of their Kingdomes and temporall Dominions which onely are properly said to be possessed in respect whereof this rule fauoureth onely Princes and not the Pope and therefore in this doubtfull and disputable case of the Popes power to depose Princes the state and condition of Princes who are in lawfull possession not onely of their right not to be deposed by the Pope but also of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they possesse is according to the aforesaid rule to be preferred 70. Moreouer that the Popes right power or authoritie to depose Princes may be said to be possessed if possession properly be of rights it is necessarie that hee exercise that power to depose Kings they knowing thereof and bearing it patiently and without contradiction as may clearely be gathered out of u Tract 2. de Instit disp 14. Molina and x Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub 11. Lessius And the reason is euident for otherwise if any man should challenge a right bee it good or bad and should exercise that pretended right the contrarie part contradicting he may neuerthelesse be said to be in lawfull possession of that right And so if temporall Lords should pretend to haue a spirituall Iurisdiction ouer temporall and spirituall persons and should exercise that pretended spirituall Iurisdiction ouer them they contradicting and excepting against the same they might neuerthelesse be said to be in possession of that spirituall Iurisdiction But Christian Kings from the time of Henry the fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that euer was deposed by the Pope vntill the time of Henry the fourth most Christian King of France who was the last King whom the Pope deposed haue euer resisted and contradicted this authoritie of the Pope to depose them And therefore although Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth challenged this authoritie to depose Kings yet they cannot be said to haue been for one yeare or one day in possession of that authoritie ouer Kings seeing that Kings haue euer gainsaid and contradicted it And although there should perchance haue beene some one or other Christian King who for some priuate or publicke respect hath not resisted the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced against him but rather yeelded thereunto yet this cannot be a sufficient warrant to preiudice his Successours or that the Pope may bee said to be in possession of his pretended authoritie to depose Kings in generall but at the most to depose that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the authoritie which the Pope claimed to depose him 71. Fourthly and lastly D. Schulckenius answereth that the aforesaid rule is to be vnderstood when the controuersie is betwixt two inferiour parties who are in suite and not betwixt the Iudge and the partie accused or if wee will apply it to the Iudge and the partie accused the Iudge is to be preferred before the partie accused but the Pope is Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes and therefore this rule saith he is in fauour of the Pope But how vnsound and insufficient is also this Reply of D. Schulckenius it is very apparant For First although the Pope be Iudge ouer all Christian Kings and Princes in spirituall causes and punishments yet in temporall causes and punishments they haue no Iudge or Superiour besides God the supreme Iudge of all both Kings and Popes and therefore well said our learned Countreiman Alexander of Hales y 3 part q. 40. mem 5. q. 4. expound those words A King is to be punished by God alone with materiall punishment And againe A King hath no man who may iudge his facts to wit to inflict corporall punishment And againe A king doth excell as it is written 1. Pet. 2. it is true in his degree to wit to exercise corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but God alone 72. Yea rather contrariwise the Roman Emperors were in times past Iudges in temporall causes of all the Romane Empire and of euery member thereof both Cleargie and Laitie but the deposition of Kings is a temporall cause and punishment for what crime soeuer whether temporall or spirituall a King be deposed and therefore the controuersie about deposing Kings betwixt the Pope challenging to himselfe that authoritie and Kings who are supreme Iudges in temporalls denying it is not betwixt the Iudge and the party accused but at the least betwixt two equalls in temporall causes whereof the Pope who first challenged this power to make Kings no Kings is the plaintiffe and Kings who defend their ancient right and prerogatiue not to be deposed by the Pope are the defendant and so also that second rule of the Law Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. When 〈◊〉 is not cleare whether of the parties who are in suite haue right the defendant is to be preferred before the plaintiffe fauoureth Kings and not the Pope who only from the time of Gregorie the seuenth claimed this authoritie to make Kings no Kings 73. Secondly I doe not thinke that any Lawyer will affirme that if a Iudge who is onely knowne to haue authoritie in ciuill matters as ciuill is opposed to criminall should challenge a Iurisdiction in criminall causes and condemne a man to death before he shewed that hee had sufficient warrant from the Prince so to doe the partie condemned is bound to obey that Iudge or that the aforesaid rule In a like or doubtfull cause hee that hath possession it to be preferred should fauour the aforesaid Iudge and not the party condemned who is not onely in possession of his life but also hath right to defend his life vntill the Iudge shew sufficient warrant or it is otherwise publikely knowne that he hath authoritie to take it away Neither is it a sufficient warrant for the Iudge that it is knowne that he is a Iudge in ciuill matters vnlesse it be also knowne that he is a Iudge also in criminall causes as likewise it is not a sufficient warrant for the Pope to depriue Kings of their temporall kingdomes that it is cleare that he is a Iudge in all spirituall matters vnlesse also it be cleare as yet it is not that he is also a Iudge in temporall causes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coercion as without doubt are the taking away of temporall kingdomes for what crime soeuer they be taken away 74.
Wherefore that Dialogue which D. Schulckenius maketh betwixt the Pope and a conuicted heretike whose goods are without any controuersie confiscated both by the Ciuill and Canon Law is vnaptly applyed to the deposing of Kings which hath beene and is at this present in controuersie among Catholikes Besides that this Dialogue also supposeth that the Pope is in possession of his authoritie to depose Kings and that Kings are not in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope and that the Pope is a Iudge of temporall Kings in temporall causes and to punish them with temporall punishments by way of coercion and also that the aforesayd rule fauoureth the Iudge and not the person conuented before the Iudge when the authority of the Iudge ouer the person conuented is not sufficiently knowen all which as I haue shewed before are very vntrue And by this thou maiest perceiue good Reader how insufficient are the exceptions which D. Schuclkenius bringeth against my argument grounded in the aforsaid rule of the Law as in very deed are al the rest of his Replies against my Apology as God willing ere long for I cannot answer fully and exactly as I intend all my Aduersaries at once I will most cleerely shew 75. Consider now do are Country-men first the vnsincere dealing of this my Aduersarie T. F. who concealeth the chiefest part of opinion and doctrine for the securing of his Maiesty of the constant loyaltie and allegeance wherein all his Catholike Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby he may cause his Maiestie to bee iealous of my fidelity and to account me no good Subiect as this man slanderously affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or child of the Church as I professe my selfe to be but that I am falne into flat heresie from which I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe for impugning that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is grounded vpon such assured and solid foundation as this man forsooth heere hath signified but how guilfully and vnsoundly you haue partly seene and he will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter where also his particular frauds and falsehoods I will more particularly and manifestly lay open to his owne shame and confusion But for all his slanderous words I trust in God that it wil appear to all men that insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui z Psal 26. mentita est iniquit as sibi that false witnesses haue risen vp against me and that wickednesse hath be lied her selfe and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a good Catholike and a dutifull childe of the Catholike Church as partly I haue prooued heere already and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter In the meane time let Mr. Fitzherbert examine well his Catholike faith and consider what a kinde of Catholike hee is who so stiffely maintaineth vncertaine opinions for the Catholike faith which if it bee truely Catholike cannot be exposed to any falshood or vncertainty as this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which with Catholike faith hee pretendeth truely to beleeue may in very deede bee false and without all doubt is vncertaine and questionable among Catholikes 76. Secondly consider how vntruely Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that my manner of disputing this question probably concerning the Popes power not to depose Princes and the lawfull taking of the Oath doth not onely giue no security to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safety and how vnlearnedly hee argueth from speculation to practise For although I should admit not onely for Disputation sake as onely I doe but also positiuely confesse that in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes whereas with that affirmatiue part of the question to wit whether it bee probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes I do not intermeddle but I do only handle the negatiue part and doe affirme that it is probable he hath no such power which manner of disputing against such Aduersaries who hold it not onely probable but certaine that he hath such a power can in no sort be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as I cleerely shewed before neuerthelesse this my Aduersarie very vnsoundly from hence inferreth that because in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore in practise it is lawfull to concurre to the actuall deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their Kingdomes or for Subiects notwithstanding any sentence of deposition to beare armes against them so long as this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth disputable and vndecided Wherfore my firme resolute and constant opinion is that the Pope hath not power to dispēce or absolue any of his Maiesties Subiects what opinion soeuer in speculation they follow concerning the Popes power to depose Princes from anie promissorie parts of the Oath which onely doe belong to practise and as for the assertory parts of the Oath which belong to speculation they are not subiect to the Popes power of dispencing as I shewed at large in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. 77. Now whether this my doctrine doth not onely giue no securitie to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as this my Aduersarie to procure his Maiesties displeasure against me falsely and vnlearnedly affirmeth if the Pope should denounce any sentence of depriuation against him I leaue to the iudgement of any sensible man Neither is it vnusuall that an opinion or doctrine may in speculation bee probable which yet in practise it is not lawfull to follow as may bee seene in the ministring of corporall physicke and of those Sacraments which are necessarie to saluation For although it bee probable that such a medicine will cure such a dangerous disease for that learned Physicians are of that opinion although other learned Physicians thinke the contrarie to be true or that such a matter or forme be sufficient to the validitie of the Sacrament for example sake of Baptisme because learned Diuines hold it to bee sufficient although other learned Diuines bee of the contrarie opinion and so in speculation both opinions be probable yet in practise wee are bound by the law of charitie to apply to our neighbour those remedies either spirituall or corporall which are out of question and controuersie and to leaue those that are questionable if certaine and vndoubted remedies can be had So likewise althogh it be probable that such a house or land doth not by a lawfull title belong to him who is in lawfull possession thereof for that learned Lawyers are of that opinion although other learned Lawyers thinke the contrarie to bee true and so in speculation both opinions bee probable yet in practise wee are bound by the rules of Iustice not to dispossesse
Posseuine did not condemne the man but the doctrine which was against the Master of the Sentences But truly I can not but greatly maruell how Posseuine could be so grossely mistaken vnlesse he would of set purpose forge something whereby he might disgrace Trithemius For if he had but briefely runne ouer that place of Trithemius which he citeth he could not but haue seene that Trithemius did only affirme Ioachims doctrine and not his person to be condemned in the Councell Tractatus autem quem scripsit c. But the Treatise saith Trithemius p In verbo Ioachim Abbas in the place cited by Posseuine which Abbot Ioachim wrote against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris is condemned in a Generall Councell as appeareth in the beginning of the Decretalls Damnamus 11 Wherefore to returne backe D. Schulckenius his words what neede had D. Schulckenius to aske aduice of Posseuine touching Trithemius his errours seeing that Posseuine himselfe hath therein not onely grossely erred but also in other his relations as in affirming Iohn Gerson Chancelour of Paris to be of the Order of the Celestines wherein also Card Bellarmine in his late treatise of Ecclesiasticall writers hath erred with him yea and sometimes which is lesse excusable when of set purpose he pretendeth to recall and amend his former errour as in verbo Durandus à S. Porciano whom in his former Edition as he saith for I neuer saw it he affirmed to be Bishop of Melda as truly he was and of the Order of S. Dominike and now forsooth in his corrected Edition he will needs haue him to be Bishop of Liege and to haue liued in the yeare 1035. and that Hermannus Contractus who liued in the yeare 1054. maketh mention of him and yet he will also haue him to be of the Order of Dominike And neuerthelesse Posseuine himselfe a little before q In verbo Dominicus Guzmannus affirmed that S. Dominike dyed in the yeare 1221. which was two hundred fourteene yeares after Durandus flourished Now let D. Schulckenius or any other who maketh so great account of Posseuines Apparatus either accord these two that Durandus à S. Porciano was according to Posseuine of the Order of S. Dominike and yet that according to the same Posseuine he liued well neere 200. yeares before S. Dominike did institute his Order or else not to giue hereafter so great credit to all that Posseuine affirmeth seeing that he hath so grossely erred both in falsly taxing Trithemius of those errours and also which is more grosse when purposely he endeauoured to amend his owne errour 12 Lastly we haue saith D Schulckenius the common opinion of Doctours and decrees of Councells which doe make the matter cleare And therefore although among learned Diuines and Lawyers there be a controuersie concerning the manner how the Pope may doe it yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it But first we haue the authoritie of Trithemius that it is a controuersie among the Schoolemen and as yet not decided by the Iudge not onely in what manner the Pope may depose the Emperour but whether he hath any power at all to depose him Then we haue the authoritie of Almaine a learned Schoole-Diuine and a Classicall Doctour that it is the opinion of very many Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can onely inflict spirituall Censures and not any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment And therefore although it be the more common opinion of Doctours that the Pope hath power to depose Princes especially of Lawyers who as Pope Pius the fift did plainely confesse to that famous Lawyer Nauarre r in Comment super cap Non liceat Papae 12. q. 2. § 3. num 6. doe attribute more authoritie to the Pope then is sufficient for that the greatest part of those Authours cited by Card Bellarmine who in expresse words affirme that the Pope hath such a power are Lawyers men also for the most part vnskilfull in Diuine Scriptures and the law of God as Dominicus Sotus affirmeth z Jn 4o. dist 18. q. 1. ar 1. yet it is not the more common opinion of Doctours that it is a cleare and certaine doctrine not to be called in question by any Catholike that the Pope hath such a power 13. Few only Diuines there are for the most part Iesuites who of late yeares haue by might and maine endeauoured without sufficient grounds to make the matter cleare and to be an vndoubted point of faith But vntill they bring more cleare decrees of Councells or more pregnant proofes from holy Scriptures then hitherto they haue brought they will neuer make the matter cleare but still it will remaine a controuersie among Catholikes not only in what maner the Pope may but whether he hath any power at all to depose the Emperour or no as it was in Trithemius and Almaines time since which time no cleare decree of any Councell hath been made to that purpose for all the decrees of Councells which by Card. Bellarmine are vrged to proue that doctrine and haue been answered by me and others and shall beneath be answered more at large were long before their time And thus much concerning the first authoritie of Trithemius and Almaine Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer is briefly debated 1. THe second testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation and also in my Apologie to proue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes not to be certaine a Jn verbo Albericus Roxiatus without controuersie or a point of faith was of Albericus Roxiatus a most famous Professour as Trithemius writeth of the Canon and Ciuill Law and a man excellently learned and according to Fa. Azor b Lib. 2. Iust cap. 14. a Classical Doctour who liued in the yeare 1340. aboue a hundred yeares since the Councell of Lateran which is now so greatly vrged For this Authour calleth in question foure of the most principall Canons or Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law which do seeme most to fauour their authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of the temporalls especially of the Romane Emperour among which one is that famous and so often inculcated by my Aduersaries sentence of deposition denounced against Fredericke the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and he affirmeth that none of them are in his opinion agreeable to law or right but that they were made by Popes against the rights and libertie of the Empire 2. The Pastours of the Church saith he c In Dictionario verbo Electio putting their sickle into others haruest haue made foure Decrees or Decretalls The one concerning the election of the Emperour which beginneth Venerabilem and of this it is there noted by all men An other is about the deposing of Friderike the Emperour
r Lib. 5. de Rō Pont. cap. 1. yet this rather confirmeth mee in my opinion For if his doctrine which denieth that the Pope as Pope hath power 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. Bellarmine 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 learned 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 Schoolemen and Doctours related by Trithemius and Almaine 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 decree of the Councel of Lateran which was long before any of these mens daies and which was also so publike 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 controuersies 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 sufficient proofe as I will shew beneath ſ Part. 3. ca. 9. seq 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 spirituall 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 coerciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence and iuridically with temporall punishments affirming as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth that Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment 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 giuen him by God which is by excluding from the Sacraments and the participation of the faithfull 37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore contradict himselfe in affirming that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people For although he be of opinion as I shewed before t Part. 1. ca. 2. 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 coerciue 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 sentence 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 in my Apologie nu 411. and here part 1. cap. 3. nu 5. Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellarmines 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 Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authoritie 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 command of the spirituall power and that shee is to be instructed 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 belonging to Christian faith and religion shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual but with spirituall not temporall 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 command and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours 39 Secondly although Pope Boniface should vnderstand those words in this sense that temporall Princes are not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls subiect to the Popes power both to command and also to punish temporally yet his authoritie herein 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. Duvall x De suprema Rom. Pont. potest part 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263 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 Constition doth say that the temporall sword is vnder the spirituall 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 manner all men must be subiect it is not expressed in this definition and therefore not to contradict this definition it is sufficient to affirme that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to command and to punish s piritually 40 Secondly for that this Extrauagant was recalled by his Successour Pope Clement the fift in
which hee appealed to Caesar was spirituall d In tract contra Barcl cap. 3 pag. 51. which is cleerely repugnant to that which hee taught in another place e Lib 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. 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 contradictions that the Church of Christ is compounded f See aboue cap. 2. of spirituall and temporall power as a man is compounded of soule and body and that the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth doe make one totall body whereof the Pope is head as a man is compounded of bâ—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 temporall 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 himselfe 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 writeth g lib. 1. de Clericis Cap. 28. 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 tributes 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 therefore 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 concerning the exemption of Clergy men against the Canonists 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 forsaketh the Diuines and this very text therefore sonnes are free which then hee brought for an obiection against his opinion and cleerely answered the same he bringeth now for a chiefe ground to proue his new opinion 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 Kingdome vnder which are all the Kingdomes of the earth ought to be free not are free as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth 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 himselfe disproueth and then from the sense to his priuate collections and inferences that if S. Peter was free all the Apostles were free and if all the Apostles all Cleargie men But if it had pleased him to haue also set downe the answere which in the former Editions of his bookes he made to this obiection the Reader would easily haue perceiued that from this place of holy Scripture no sufficient reason could be gathered 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 tribute which the children of Israell were by the law of God Exod. 30. commanded to pay for their soules vnto 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 gouernours should be exempted from paying tributes Secondly 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 answereth 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 congruence wherefore they are freed by the decrees of Priâ—ces for therefore he saith that they doe not pay tributes as the children of the Kingdome and he addeth an other cause to wit the honor of Christ for he saith that for his honour Cleargie men doe not pay tributs Therfore 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 answereth that although Iansenius whom Salmeron and Suarez doe follow doth affirme that S. Austen by the children of the supreme kingdome did vnderstand the naturall 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 answere of Abulensis to be the more probable that S. Austen did not vnderstand naturall children but Clergie men and Monkes who as also S. Hierome affirmeth in Cap. 17 Mat. were and are
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 AN ADJOJNDER to the first and second Part wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that Clause of the Oath wherein the Doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their Subiects is abiured as impious and hereticall is proued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurdity or contradiction euen by Mr. FITZHERBERTS examples and that it may without any Periury be sworne by any CATHOLIKE PErceiuing Courteous Reader that this my Answer to Mr. Fitzherberts Reply doth arise to a greater bignesse then at the first I imagined for that I am compelled not onely to answer him but also D. Schulckenius to whom he remitteth his Reader for the confutation of many of my Answers I thought good for diuers reasons to diuide it into two Bookes and to conclude the first Booke with the first and second Part onely adioyning by way of an Appendix for thy better satisfaction the Answer which I made to Mr. Fitzherberts fourth Chapter wherein hee excepteth against those words of the Oath as impious and hereticall Doctrine for against no other clause of the Oath doth hee make any particular obiection besides his generall discourse in fauour of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls Which his Doctrine seeing that I haue already by extrinsecall grounds and the authority of learned Catholikes for to all the intrinsecall grounds which my Aduersary bringeth I will answer in the next booke which God willing ere it be long thou shalt receiue proued not to bee so certaine but that the contrary hath euer beene and is at this present approued by learned Catholikes and consequently may without any danger of heresie error or temerity be maintained by any Catholike and considering also that Mr. Fitzherbert taketh no particular exception against any clause of the Oath but onely against those words as impious and hereticall Doctrine it is euident that any man of iudgement may from that which I haue already said and proued easily conclude that the Oath may lawfully and with a safe Conscience bee taken if my Aduersaries obiections against those words of the Oath as impious and hereticall Doctrine bee once cleerely confuted 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in the beginning of his fourth Chapter seemeth to take it very ill for that I fall saith he vppon him very foule charging hâ—m with flat falsity at the first word But truely hee doth in this exaggerate the matter somwhat more then is needfull as also in that he saith that for a while I made my selfe merry with Fa. Lessius For besides that the word flat is added by himselfe I did neither cogge scoffe gibe or make my selfe merry with Fa. Lessius but after I had brought those foure instances to confute Fa. Lessius his antecedent proposition whereon hee grounded his consequence I onely demanded not by way of scoffing cogging gibing or making my selfe merry as this man in this and his former Chapter vntruely affirmeth but rather out of pitty compassion and complaint whether those and such like were not trim Arguments to moue English Catholicks prodigally to cast away their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince And as for charging my Aduersary with flat falsity my wordes were onely these Thirdly it is false which this Author F. T. affirmeth to wit that the Doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is plainely abiured in â—his Oath as impious and hereticall for this doctrine onely is abiured in this Oath as impious and hereticall that Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer which position as I will declare beneath hath this sense that it is in the free power of Subiects to depose or if they will to murther their Prince beeing excommunicated or depriued by the Pope 3 In the very first beginning I affirmed and Mr. Fitzherbert in his first Chapter related my words that the supposition which hee made to wit that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is denyed in this Oath is most false and then he took no exception against this word most false and now after he hath so often fallen very foule vpon mee with charging mee with being absurd ridiculous foolish malicious impudent impious with cogging scoffing gibing heretike and being no good Child of the Catholike Church and vsing many such like slanderous and disgracefull termes against mee hee taketh it very ill for that I onely affirme his assertion to bee false which word neuerthelesse is vsuall in Schooles among Disputers and Answerers and is not taken for any disgracefull tearme being in sense all one with vntrue or I deny the assertion or position But because I perceiue Mr. Fitzherberts patience cannot brooke the very least of those so many foule disgracefull and slanderous nicknames hee is pleased to bestow vpon me and doth so easily see a little mote in my eye not perceiuing the great beame in his owne I will heereafter abstaine from that word false and in stead thereof vse vntrue as in the English Edition I did translate it neither can he haue any colour to bee distasted with this word vntrue vnlesse hee doe take it ill that I doe not forsooth approue all his opinions and applaud whatsoeuer he shall say to be true 4 But to the matter Mr. Fitzherbert in his fourth Chapter endeauoreth to proue two things the one that I haue falsly charged him with affirming that the Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall which hee denyeth to haue affirmed although hee granteth withall â—hat it is true if hee had affirmed it The second is that my interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the aforesaid Doctrine and Position That Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects is abiured as impious and hereticall is absurd according to my owne grounds 5. As touching the first Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth a Cap. 4. nu 1. that he saith nothing at all touching his owne opinion whether the doctrine of deposing Princes be abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall and much lesse that it is manifestly abiured as I say he doth but he affirmeth onely that the Oath is wholy repugnant to a Canon of the great Councell of Lateran by reason of two clauses therein And for proofe thereof he repeateth b Nu. 2. the words of his Supplement which are these Fourthly it appeareth also hereby and by all the premises that this Oath of pretended allegiance is an vnlawfull Oath and not to be taken by any Christian man seeing that it flatly contradicteth the said Councell and Canon not onely